Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 protected communications between husband and wife. From 1 July 2024 the same rule is in Section 128 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), word for word. It does two things. A person who is or has been married cannot be compelled to disclose anything his or her spouse told him or her during the marriage. And that person is not even permitted to disclose it unless the spouse who made the communication (or that spouse’s representative in interest) consents.
The consent rule has only two exceptions: “suits between married persons”, and “proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other”. In these cases a spouse may disclose the communication without the other’s consent, but still cannot be compelled to. In Vibhor Garg v. Neha (14 July 2025) the Supreme Court held that a husband’s divorce petition is such a proceeding, so his recorded telephone calls with his wife could be considered as evidence. Cases begun before 1 July 2024 are still decided under the old Section 122 (Section 170(2) BSA).
Section 122 Evidence Act / Section 128 BSA at a glance
- Section 122 IEA in the BSA: Section 128 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, “Communications during marriage”; the text is unchanged.
- Rule 1: a person who is or has been married cannot be compelled to disclose a communication made to him or her during marriage by the spouse.
- Rule 2: that person is not permitted to disclose it unless the spouse who made it, or his or her representative in interest, consents.
- Exceptions (to Rule 2 only): in suits between married persons, and prosecutions of one spouse for a crime committed against the other, no consent is needed to disclose; Rule 1 still applies.
- After divorce or nullity: the bar still applies to what was said during the marriage (Vibhor Garg v. Neha, 2025; earlier, for a decree of nullity, M.C. Verghese v. T.J. Ponnan, 1968).
- Can a wife be a witness against her husband? Yes, a competent witness (Section 126(2) BSA, formerly Section 120 IEA); Section 128 only shields the communications.
- Letters and messages: outside the two exceptions, the receiving spouse cannot disclose them in evidence without the sender’s consent; in a divorce case between the spouses this bar does not apply (Vibhor Garg v. Neha, 2025). Other ways of proving them are decided at the trial.
- Old cases: proceedings pending on 1 July 2024 continue under the Indian Evidence Act (Section 170(2) BSA).
Reviewed and updated by Century Law Firm, Delhi – October 2026. Statutory references are to the Acts as in force on that date. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is quoted from its English text on India Code (as on 6 October 2025, still the current version on 23 October 2026) and its official Hindi text on India Code, and the two Supreme Court judgments from the Court’s official copies.
Section 128 BSA (formerly Section 122 of the Evidence Act): the text
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act No. 47 of 2023) came into force on 1 July 2024 (notification S.O. 849(E) dated 23 February 2024). Section 170(1) BSA says: “The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) is hereby repealed.” The marital communications rule moved from Section 122 to Section 128, in the same chapter, Chapter IX (“Of Witnesses”). Section 128 reads:
“128. Communications during marriage.—No person who is or has been married, shall be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married; nor shall he be permitted to disclose any such communication, unless the person who made it, or his representative in interest, consents, except in suits between married persons, or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other.”
The firm’s Gazette-checked comparison of the two Acts records this change as “No change”: only the number is new. Other old sections can be looked up in the IEA to BSA comparison tool.
Under Section 170(2) BSA, any “trial, inquiry, investigation, proceeding or appeal pending” when the BSA came into force “shall be dealt with under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872”. So a case pending on 1 July 2024 still applies Section 122; the result is the same, because the words are the same.
Section 128 BSA in Hindi (official text)
The official Hindi text of the Act, भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिनियम, 2023 (2023 का अधिनियम संख्यांक 47), published on India Code, gives Section 128 under the heading “विवाहित स्थिति के दौरान की गई संसूचनाएं” as follows:
“128. कोई भी व्यक्ति, जो विवाहित है या जो विवाहित रह चुका है, किसी संसूचना को, जो किसी व्यक्ति द्वारा, जिससे वह विवाहित है या रह चुका है, विवाहित स्थिति के दौरान में उसे दी गई थी, प्रकट करने के लिए विवश नहीं किया जाएगा, और न ही उसे किसी ऐसी संसूचना को प्रकट करने की अनुमति दी जाएगी, जब तक वह व्यक्ति, जिसने वह संसूचना दी है या उसका हितप्रतिनिधि सम्मत न हो, सिवाय उन वादों में, जो विवाहित व्यक्तियों के बीच हों, या उन कार्यवाहियों में, जिनमें एक विवाहित व्यक्ति दूसरे के विरुद्ध किए गए किसी अपराध के लिए अभियोजित है ।”
The Hindi text uses संसूचना for “communication”, विवश for “compelled”, प्रकट करना for “disclose” and हितप्रतिनिधि for “representative in interest”. A short Hindi summary of this page is given further below.
The two rules in Section 128
The Supreme Court explained the old Section 122 in M.C. Verghese v. T.J. Ponnan (judgment of 13 November 1968): “The section consists of two branches–(1) that a married person shall not be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during marriage by his spouse; and (2) that the married person shall not except in two special classes of proceedings be permitted to disclose by giving evidence in court the communication, unless the person who made it, or his representative in interest, consents thereto.” Section 128 BSA has the same two branches.
Rule 1: the spouse cannot be compelled
A husband or wife in the witness box can refuse to say what the other spouse told him or her during the marriage. Even the judge’s wide power to put questions under Section 168 BSA (formerly Section 165 IEA) does not allow a judge “to compel any witness to answer any question … which such witness would be entitled to refuse to answer or produce under sections 127 to 136”. In Vibhor Garg v. Neha (2025) the Supreme Court described this first part as “a blanket bar which cannot be relaxed in any situation”, adding: “This protects the right to privacy between a married couple.”
Rule 2: the spouse is not permitted, without consent
The second rule goes further. Even if the spouse who received the communication wants to disclose it, the law does not permit it unless “the person who made it, or his representative in interest, consents”. The power to allow disclosure therefore lies with the spouse who made the communication. As the Supreme Court put it in Vibhor Garg v. Neha: “without the consent of the spouse who made the communication, the court cannot permit the other spouse to disclose that communication.”
“Is or has been married”
The section covers a person “who is or has been married” and a communication made “during marriage” by a person to whom he “is or has been married”. In M.C. Verghese, the wife obtained a decree of nullity while the case was pending, and it was argued that the bar no longer applied. The Supreme Court rejected this: “If the marriage was subsisting at the time when the communications were made, the bar prescribed by s. 122 will operate.” (That marriage was voidable, annulled for impotency.) In Vibhor Garg v. Neha (2025) the Supreme Court stated the rule generally: “The prohibition of disclosure under the Section applies even after the marriage is no longer subsisting, if the “communication”, whose disclosure is sought to be prohibited, is only the one that was made during the subsistence of the marriage.” It also said that “The provision applies vis-à-vis a legally wedded wife and not to any other kind of relationship.”
The two exceptions: when a spouse can disclose
In two kinds of cases the bar on disclosure without consent does not apply: the spouse may disclose what the other spouse said or wrote without that spouse’s consent. In the Supreme Court’s words in Vibhor Garg v. Neha, “in these two given scenarios, the requirement of taking consent from the other spouse before being permitted to disclose the communication is done away with”. The first part, that a spouse cannot be compelled, still applies.
1. Suits between married persons
The first exception is “suits between married persons”. Where husband and wife are on opposite sides of the case, a spouse may disclose the other’s communications without consent. In Vibhor Garg v. Neha (2025) the Supreme Court held that a husband’s divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act is such a proceeding between the husband and the wife. Whether another kind of proceeding (for example a maintenance case) falls within the words is for the court to decide in that case.
Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 also lets a Family Court receive as evidence any material that may assist it “whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872”. In Vibhor Garg v. Neha the Supreme Court said it was not necessary to rely on Section 14 “when the Evidence Act itself permits such a communication to be admitted in evidence by way of an exception”. For the kinds of cases that reach these courts, see the firm’s guide to matrimonial cases in India.
2. Prosecution of one spouse for a crime against the other
The second exception covers “proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other”. If a husband is prosecuted for cruelty to his wife under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 498A IPC), the wife may disclose in evidence, without his consent, what he said or wrote to her. The exception is limited to crimes against the other spouse. If one spouse is prosecuted for a crime against someone else, the exception does not apply and the communication stays protected, unless the spouse who made it consents.
Prepared by Century Law Firm from Sections 126 and 128 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (India Code, as on 6 October 2025) and the Supreme Court judgments in M.C. Verghese v. T.J. Ponnan (1968) and Vibhor Garg v. Neha (2025) (official copies).
M.C. Verghese v. T.J. Ponnan (1968): letters from husband to wife
This 1968 judgment is still the starting point: the Supreme Court quoted it again in Vibhor Garg v. Neha (2025). In July 1964 T.J. Ponnan wrote three letters from Bombay to his wife Rathi, who was living with her parents in Trivandrum. Her father, M.C. Verghese, said the letters defamed him and filed a criminal complaint of defamation. Relying on Section 122, the District Magistrate discharged Ponnan; the Sessions Court set that aside, and the Kerala High Court restored the discharge.
The Supreme Court (Shah, Ramaswami and Grover JJ.) allowed Verghese’s appeal and sent the case back for trial. On Section 122 it said: “Section 122 of the Evidence Act only prevents disclosure in giving evidence in court of the communication made by the husband to the wife. If Rathi appears in the witness box to give evidence about the communications made to her husband, prima facie the communications may not be permitted to be deposed to or disclosed unless Ponnan consents. That does not, however, mean that no other evidence which is not barred under s. 122 of the Evidence Act or other provisions of the Act can be given.”
The letters were by then with the father. The Court said: “If the complainant seeks to support his case only upon the evidence of the wife of the accused, he may be met with the bar of s. 122 of the Indian Evidence Act. Whether he will be able to prove the letters in any other manner is a matter which must be left to be determined at the trial”. It also left open whether the father, having received the letters from his daughter, could give evidence as her agent.
Can a wife testify against her husband? Section 126 BSA
Yes. Being married does not stop a person from being a witness for or against the spouse. Section 126 BSA (formerly Section 120 of the Evidence Act), “Competency of husband and wife as witnesses in certain cases”, says: “(1) In all civil proceedings the parties to the suit, and the husband or wife of any party to the suit, shall be competent witnesses. (2) In criminal proceedings against any person, the husband or wife of such person, respectively, shall be a competent witness.”
The general rule is Section 124 BSA (formerly Section 118 IEA), “Who may testify”: “All persons shall be competent to testify unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions, by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind.”
So the two sections work together. A wife can give evidence in her husband’s criminal trial (Section 126(2)), but she cannot be made to reveal what he told her during the marriage, and, outside the two exceptions, may not reveal it without his consent (Section 128). Section 128 is about communications; it does not make the spouse an incompetent witness. The Supreme Court said in Vibhor Garg v. Neha that the bar “is not attracted for the acts that were seen by the spouse or experienced by the spouse”: a wife who is told “I killed Z” is barred from disclosing that, “But X is not barred from disclosing if she secretly saw Y killing Z.”
Letters, emails, WhatsApp messages and recorded calls between spouses
Section 128 speaks of “any communication”, without limiting the medium. A “document” under the BSA “includes electronic and digital records”, and illustration (vi) to Section 2(1)(d) says “An electronic record on emails, server logs, documents on computers, laptop or smartphone, messages, websites, locational evidence and voice mail messages stored on digital devices are documents”. Electronic records are proved under Section 63 BSA (formerly Section 65B of the Evidence Act); see the firm’s guide to electronic records as evidence.
A spouse who received a message from the other spouse during the marriage cannot be compelled to disclose it in evidence, and is not permitted to disclose it without the sender’s consent unless the case is a suit between the spouses or a prosecution of one of them for a crime against the other. The bar is on the spouse, not on the message itself. The Supreme Court said in Vibhor Garg v. Neha: “The spouse cannot be compelled or permitted to get into the witness box and disclose the communication, but that communication may be brought before the court through any other means.” Whether a particular message, letter or recording is proved is still decided at the trial, as the Court said in M.C. Verghese.
The Supreme Court applied these rules to recorded telephone calls in Vibhor Garg v. Neha (judgment of 14 July 2025, 2025 INSC 829). A husband who had filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act wanted to produce recordings of his telephone conversations with his wife. The Court held that “due to the exception provided in that Section, the bar on the disclosure of such communication is lifted since the communication sought to be disclosed in the present case is in a proceeding between the husband and the wife”. It also said that “the fact that the conversation was recorded without the consent and knowledge of the person speaking is not a prohibition on the admissibility of the evidence”, but that a recording must still pass “the three-fold test of relevance, identification and accuracy”. It directed the Family Court to take the recordings on record and “consider the same as evidence, in accordance with law”. The case was decided under Section 122 of the Evidence Act, whose words Section 128 BSA repeats.
Other privileged communications in the BSA
Section 128 is one of several privileges in Chapter IX of the BSA (old numbers from the firm’s Gazette-checked comparison):
| BSA section | Formerly (IEA) | Privilege |
|---|---|---|
| 127 | 121 | A Judge or Magistrate cannot be compelled, except on a superior court’s special order, to answer questions on his own conduct in court |
| 128 | 122 | Communications during marriage |
| 129 | 123 | Evidence from unpublished official records on affairs of State, only with the head of department’s permission |
| 130 | 124 | Official communications made to a public officer in official confidence |
| 131 | 125 | A Magistrate, police officer or revenue officer cannot be compelled to say when he got information about an offence |
| 132 | 126, 127 | Professional communications between client and advocate (also interpreters, clerks and employees of advocates) |
| 134 | 129 | Confidential communication with legal advisers |
| 136 | 131 | Production of documents or electronic records that another person could refuse to produce |
“Dhara 122 kya hai?” Other sections numbered 122
Many searches for “dhara 122” or “section 122” are for a different law:
| Search | What it is | Now |
|---|---|---|
| Section 122 Evidence Act (IEA) | Communications during marriage | Section 128 BSA |
| Section 122 IPC | Collecting arms, etc., with intention of waging war against the Government of India | Section 149 BNS (imprisonment for life, or up to 10 years, and fine) |
| Section 122 CrPC | Imprisonment in default of security | Section 141 BNSS |
| Section 122 BNS | Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt on provocation | Formerly Sections 334 and 335 IPC |
| Section 122 BSA | Estoppel of tenant and of licensee of person in possession | Formerly Section 116 IEA |
| Article 122, Constitution | Validity of proceedings in Parliament not to be questioned for irregularity of procedure | Unchanged |
भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिनियम की धारा 128 (पहले साक्ष्य अधिनियम की धारा 122) – हिंदी में सारांश (Summary in Hindi)
भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिनियम, 1872 की धारा 122 पति-पत्नी के बीच की बातचीत को संरक्षण देती थी। 1 जुलाई 2024 से भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिनियम, 2023 (2023 का अधिनियम संख्यांक 47) लागू है, और यही नियम अब इसकी धारा 128 में है, जिसका शीर्षक है “विवाहित स्थिति के दौरान की गई संसूचनाएं”। धारा 128 के शब्द पुरानी धारा 122 जैसे ही हैं, केवल धारा का नंबर बदला है। जो मामले 1 जुलाई 2024 को लंबित थे, वे धारा 170(2) के अनुसार पुराने साक्ष्य अधिनियम के अधीन ही चलेंगे।
धारा 128 के दो भाग हैं। पहला, जो व्यक्ति विवाहित है या विवाहित रह चुका है, उसे उस संसूचना को प्रकट करने के लिए विवश नहीं किया जाएगा जो उसके पति या पत्नी ने विवाहित स्थिति के दौरान उसे दी थी। दूसरा, उसे ऐसी संसूचना को प्रकट करने की अनुमति भी नहीं दी जाएगी, जब तक कि संसूचना देने वाला व्यक्ति या उसका हितप्रतिनिधि सम्मत न हो। यानी सहमति उस पति या पत्नी की चाहिए जिसने बात कही या लिखी थी, न कि उसकी जिसने सुनी या पढ़ी।
सहमति वाले नियम के दो अपवाद हैं: (1) वे वाद जो विवाहित व्यक्तियों के बीच हों, और (2) वे कार्यवाहियां जिनमें एक विवाहित व्यक्ति दूसरे के विरुद्ध किए गए किसी अपराध के लिए अभियोजित है। उदाहरण के लिए, यदि पति पर पत्नी के साथ क्रूरता का मुकदमा भारतीय न्याय संहिता, 2023 की धारा 85 (पहले आईपीसी की धारा 498क) में चल रहा है, तो पत्नी पति द्वारा कही या लिखी बात उसकी सहमति के बिना भी साक्ष्य में बता सकती है। ध्यान रहे कि ये अपवाद केवल सहमति वाले दूसरे भाग पर लागू होते हैं; किसी पति या पत्नी को ऐसी संसूचना प्रकट करने के लिए विवश किसी भी स्थिति में नहीं किया जा सकता। लेकिन यदि पति पर किसी तीसरे व्यक्ति के विरुद्ध अपराध का मुकदमा है, तो यह अपवाद लागू नहीं होता।
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने एम.सी. वर्गीज बनाम टी.जे. पोन्नन (13 नवंबर 1968) में कहा कि यह धारा केवल न्यायालय में साक्ष्य देते समय पति-पत्नी की संसूचना को प्रकट करने से रोकती है। उस मामले में पति ने पत्नी को पत्र लिखे थे, जिनमें पत्नी के पिता के बारे में मानहानिकारक बातें कही गई थीं। न्यायालय ने कहा कि यदि पत्नी गवाह के रूप में उन पत्रों की बात बताती है, तो प्रथम दृष्टया पोन्नन की सहमति के बिना उसे यह बताने की अनुमति नहीं दी जा सकती, पर इसका अर्थ यह नहीं कि कोई अन्य साक्ष्य नहीं दिया जा सकता; पत्रों को किसी अन्य तरीके से साबित किया जा सकता है या नहीं, यह विचारण (ट्रायल) में तय होगा। न्यायालय ने यह भी कहा कि यदि संसूचना के समय विवाह अस्तित्व में था तो बाद में विवाह की अकृतता (नलिटी) की डिक्री हो जाने पर भी रोक लागू रहेगी; निर्णायक तारीख संसूचना की तारीख है, साक्ष्य देने की तारीख नहीं। सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने विभोर गर्ग बनाम नेहा (14 जुलाई 2025) में दोहराया कि विवाह समाप्त होने के बाद भी यह रोक उस संसूचना पर लागू रहती है जो विवाह के दौरान की गई थी।
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने विभोर गर्ग बनाम नेहा में यह भी कहा कि हिंदू विवाह अधिनियम की धारा 13 की तलाक याचिका पति-पत्नी के बीच की कार्यवाही है, इसलिए वहां यह रोक लागू नहीं होती, और पति द्वारा रिकॉर्ड की गई फोन बातचीत को फैमिली कोर्ट विधि के अनुसार साक्ष्य के रूप में विचार करेगा। न्यायालय के अनुसार, बातचीत का बोलने वाले की सहमति और जानकारी के बिना रिकॉर्ड किया जाना अपने आप में उसे अग्राह्य नहीं बनाता, पर रिकॉर्डिंग को सुसंगति, आवाज़ की पहचान और सटीकता की कसौटी पूरी करनी होगी।
क्या पत्नी पति के विरुद्ध गवाही दे सकती है? हां। धारा 126 (पहले धारा 120) के अनुसार सभी सिविल कार्यवाहियों में वाद के पक्षकार और किसी पक्षकार का पति या पत्नी सक्षम साक्षी होंगे, और किसी व्यक्ति के विरुद्ध दांडिक कार्यवाहियों में उस व्यक्ति का पति या पत्नी सक्षम साक्षी होगा। धारा 128 केवल विवाह के दौरान की गई संसूचना को बचाती है, गवाह बनने से नहीं रोकती।
इलेक्ट्रॉनिक संदेश: “दस्तावेज” की परिभाषा (धारा 2) में इलेक्ट्रॉनिक और डिजिटल अभिलेख शामिल हैं, और धारा 128 माध्यम पर कोई सीमा नहीं लगाती। पति या पत्नी को दूसरे द्वारा भेजा गया संदेश न्यायालय में प्रकट करने के लिए विवश नहीं किया जा सकता, और ऊपर बताए दो अपवादों को छोड़कर, भेजने वाले की सहमति के बिना उसे प्रकट करने की अनुमति नहीं है। इलेक्ट्रॉनिक अभिलेख धारा 63 (पहले साक्ष्य अधिनियम की धारा 65B) के अनुसार साबित किए जाते हैं।
ध्यान दें: आईपीसी की धारा 122 अब भारतीय न्याय संहिता की धारा 149 है और दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता की धारा 122 अब भारतीय नागरिक सुरक्षा संहिता की धारा 141 है; ये अलग विषय हैं। यह सारांश फर्म द्वारा तैयार किया गया है; धारा 128 और धारा 126 के शब्द भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिनियम के आधिकारिक हिंदी पाठ से लिए गए हैं।
Frequently asked questions
Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, “Communications during marriage”, says that a person who is or has been married cannot be compelled to disclose any communication made to him or her during marriage by the spouse, and is not permitted to disclose it unless the spouse who made it, or his or her representative in interest, consents. The consent requirement does not apply in suits between married persons and in prosecutions of one spouse for a crime against the other. Since 1 July 2024 the rule is in Section 128 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
Section 128 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), “Communications during marriage”. The wording is the same as the old Section 122; the firm’s comparison of the two Acts records “No change”. Under Section 170(2) BSA, cases that were pending on 1 July 2024 continue to be decided under the Indian Evidence Act, so Section 122 still applies to them.
There are two: “suits between married persons”, and “proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other”. In these cases a spouse may disclose what the other spouse said or wrote during the marriage without that spouse’s consent. As the Supreme Court explained in Vibhor Garg v. Neha (2025), the exceptions apply only to the consent requirement: a spouse still cannot be compelled to disclose.
The exception in Section 128 BSA (formerly Section 122 IEA) covers only proceedings in which one married person “is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other”. If a husband or wife is prosecuted for an offence against a third person, the exception does not apply, so the other spouse cannot be compelled to disclose, and is not permitted without the accused’s consent to disclose, what the accused said to him or her during the marriage. The spouse may still give evidence about other matters (Section 126(2) BSA).
No, for communications made during the marriage. In Vibhor Garg v. Neha (14 July 2025) the Supreme Court said: “The prohibition of disclosure under the Section applies even after the marriage is no longer subsisting, if the “communication”, whose disclosure is sought to be prohibited, is only the one that was made during the subsistence of the marriage.” Earlier, in M.C. Verghese v. T.J. Ponnan (1968), a later decree of nullity of a voidable marriage did not lift the bar, because the status on the date of the communication decides.
Yes. Under Section 126(2) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (formerly Section 120 of the Evidence Act), “In criminal proceedings against any person, the husband or wife of such person, respectively, shall be a competent witness”, and under Section 126(1) spouses of parties are competent witnesses in civil proceedings. What Section 128 adds is that she cannot be made to disclose what he communicated to her during the marriage and, outside its two exceptions, may not disclose it without his consent.
Section 128 BSA allows disclosure if “the person who made it, or his representative in interest, consents”. So the consent must come from the spouse who made the communication (or his or her representative in interest), not from the spouse who received it. Without that consent, the receiving spouse is not permitted to disclose it, except in a suit between the spouses or a prosecution of one for a crime against the other. Even with that consent, the receiving spouse cannot be compelled to disclose it (the first part of the section).
Section 128 BSA (formerly Section 122) means the spouse who received a letter cannot be compelled to disclose it in evidence and, outside the two exceptions, is not permitted to disclose it without the writer’s consent. In M.C. Verghese v. T.J. Ponnan (1968), the Supreme Court said the section “only prevents disclosure in giving evidence in court”, that other evidence not barred by the Act can be given, and that whether the letters could be proved in another manner “must be left to be determined at the trial”.
Section 128 BSA speaks of “any communication” without limiting the medium, and a “document” under Section 2(1)(d) includes electronic and digital records. A spouse cannot be compelled to disclose such a message in evidence and, outside the two exceptions, is not permitted to disclose it without the sender’s consent. In a proceeding between the spouses, such as a divorce case, the consent bar does not apply, and the Supreme Court held in Vibhor Garg v. Neha (2025) that a call recorded without the other spouse’s knowledge is not inadmissible for that reason alone. Electronic records are proved under Section 63 BSA (formerly Section 65B of the Evidence Act).
The first exception in Section 128 is for “suits between married persons”, that is, cases where husband and wife are the opposing parties; the Supreme Court held in Vibhor Garg v. Neha (14 July 2025) that a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act is such a proceeding, so the bar on disclosure is lifted there. Whether another kind of proceeding, such as a maintenance case, falls within the words is for the court to decide.
भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिनियम, 1872 की धारा 122 (अब भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिनियम, 2023 की धारा 128, “विवाहित स्थिति के दौरान की गई संसूचनाएं”) के अनुसार जो व्यक्ति विवाहित है या रह चुका है, उसे विवाह के दौरान पति या पत्नी द्वारा दी गई संसूचना प्रकट करने के लिए विवश नहीं किया जाएगा, और संसूचना देने वाले या उसके हितप्रतिनिधि की सहमति के बिना उसे प्रकट करने की अनुमति नहीं होगी। पति-पत्नी के बीच के वादों में, और उन कार्यवाहियों में जिनमें एक पर दूसरे के विरुद्ध अपराध का अभियोजन है, सहमति की आवश्यकता नहीं रहती।
Conclusion
Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act is now Section 128 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, with the same words. A husband or wife cannot be compelled to disclose what the other spouse communicated during the marriage, and may not disclose it without that spouse’s consent except in suits between the spouses and prosecutions of one spouse for a crime against the other. The protection attaches to the date of the communication and survives divorce or annulment. In Vibhor Garg v. Neha (2025) the Supreme Court held that a divorce petition between the spouses falls within the exception.
The section does not stop a spouse from being a witness (Section 126 BSA), and it bars only disclosure by the spouse in evidence, not proof of the communication by other means. For more provisions explained in plain English, see the firm’s Legal Sections Explained hub.
Sources used for this post: the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act No. 47 of 2023), Sections 1, 2(1)(a), (d) and (e), 63, 124, 126 to 132, 134, 136, 168 and 170, English text on India Code (a2023-47.pdf, as on 6 October 2025; re-checked on 23 October 2026, no later version or amendment), commencement 1 July 2024 by notification S.O. 849(E) dated 23 February 2024 (as noted on India Code), and its official Hindi text on India Code (hh202347.pdf, Gazette of India Extraordinary pages 475, 521 and 522; Sections 126 and 128 read from the printed page images); the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 85, 122 and 149) and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 141), India Code texts as on 6 October 2025; the Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 14 (India Code); the Constitution of India, Article 122 (India Code); the firm’s section-by-section comparison data for the IEA–BSA, IPC–BNS and CrPC–BNSS, checked against the Gazette texts; and M.C. Verghese v. T.J. Ponnan, Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 1967, judgment of 13 November 1968 (1970 AIR 1876, 1969 SCR (2) 692), official copy at https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/1913.pdf; and Vibhor Garg v. Neha, Supreme Court of India, arising out of SLP (C) No. 21195 of 2021, judgment of 14 July 2025 (2025 INSC 829), paras 8.8, 9.5, 10 to 10.2 and 13, official copy at https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/31421/31421_2021_5_1501_62289_Judgement_14-Jul-2025.pdf.
