If your spouse is upset about a private conversation you had with someone else, you may be worried that a criminal complaint by spouse is coming next. Let me reassure you at the outset. In India, simply having a private conversation with another person, even a flirtatious or emotionally close one, is not a crime. Adultery itself was decriminalised by the Supreme Court in 2018, and the new criminal code does not bring it back. However, a matrimonial dispute can still lead to complaints on other grounds, and the content of the conversation, as well as how your spouse obtained it, can matter. This guide explains when criminal law can be involved, what your spouse can and cannot do, and how to protect yourself.

Let me start with the legal framework. Since 1 July 2024, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) has replaced the Indian Penal Code, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) has replaced the Evidence Act. Matrimonial disputes are also governed by personal laws such as the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, along with the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Understanding how these laws interact is the key to understanding your risk.

The most important starting point is the decriminalisation of adultery. In Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court struck down Section 497 of the IPC, which had punished adultery. The Court held that the provision was arbitrary, treated women as the property of their husbands, and violated Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. It also struck down the related part of Section 198(2) of the CrPC, which allowed husbands to prosecute for adultery.

The BNS has not reintroduced adultery as an offence. So even if your spouse believes the conversation reflects an emotional or physical relationship with someone else, that belief alone cannot be the basis of a criminal case against you or the other person. The Supreme Court in Joseph Shine made it clear that adultery can still be a ground for civil remedies such as divorce, but it is no longer a crime. There is one limited exception. In 2023, the Supreme Court clarified that Joseph Shine does not prevent disciplinary action for such conduct within the armed forces under their service laws.

A private conversation is also protected by your fundamental right to privacy. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court held that privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21, including the right to private communications and personal autonomy. Marriage does not erase this right. Your spouse may feel hurt or betrayed, and those feelings are real, but hurt feelings do not turn lawful private communication into a criminal offence.

That said, a criminal complaint can still arise in certain situations. The first situation is where the content of the conversation itself amounts to an offence. For example, if you sent sexually explicit messages to someone who did not want them, that may amount to sexual harassment under Section 75 of the BNS or an offence under Section 67 or 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. If you made threats to someone, criminal intimidation under Section 351 of the BNS may apply. In such cases, however, the complaint usually comes from the person who received the messages, not from your spouse.

The second situation is where the conversation involves your spouse in a way that harms them. If you shared your spouse's intimate images with the other person without consent, that may amount to voyeurism under Section 77 of the BNS (if your spouse is a woman) or an offence under Section 66E of the IT Act, which protects people of every gender. If you made false and damaging statements about your spouse to the other person, defamation under Section 356 of the BNS (formerly Sections 499 and 500 IPC) may be alleged. Defamation requires a complaint by the person defamed under Section 222 of the BNSS.

The third and most common situation is where an upset spouse files a complaint on broader matrimonial grounds. If you are a husband, your wife may file a complaint of cruelty under Section 85 of the BNS, which replaces Section 498A of the IPC. Under Section 86, cruelty includes wilful conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide or cause grave injury to her mental or physical health. A single private conversation would not ordinarily satisfy this definition, but it is often cited alongside other allegations of mistreatment.

There is one more provision you should be aware of. Section 84 of the BNS (formerly Section 498 IPC) punishes taking or enticing away a married woman, or detaining her, with the intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person. This provision survived Joseph Shine. However, it requires the actual taking, enticing, or detaining of a married woman with that specific intent. A mere private conversation would not satisfy these strict ingredients.

Under Section 219 of the BNSS (formerly Section 198 CrPC), courts can take cognizance of offences relating to marriage, such as bigamy under Section 82 of the BNS, only on a complaint by the aggrieved person. This is a safeguard that prevents outsiders from prosecuting marriage-related offences. It also reflects the law's view that most marital conflicts are private matters rather than public crimes.

Now let us look at the flip side, because your spouse's conduct may also raise legal issues. If your spouse accessed your phone, email, or social media accounts without permission, installed spyware, or hacked into your devices, that may amount to an offence. Section 43 of the IT Act provides for compensation for unauthorised access, and Section 66 makes it punishable when done dishonestly or fraudulently. Identity theft, such as logging in using your password, is punishable under Section 66C.

If a husband secretly monitors his wife's online activity, that may also amount to stalking under Section 78 of the BNS, which includes monitoring a woman's use of the internet or electronic communication. If your spouse threatens to expose your private conversation to family, friends, or your employer unless you comply with certain demands, that may amount to criminal intimidation under Section 351 or even extortion under Section 308 of the BNS. Being married does not give anyone a licence to commit these offences.

There is an important development on evidence, however. In Vibhor Garg v. Neha (2025), the Supreme Court held that secretly recorded conversations between spouses can be admitted as evidence in matrimonial proceedings. The Court relied on the exception in the spousal privilege rule, now found in Section 128 of the BSA (formerly Section 122 of the Evidence Act), which allows disclosure in suits between married persons. So even if your spouse obtained the conversation in a questionable way, it may still be used in a divorce or maintenance case, although the manner of obtaining it may expose your spouse to separate legal consequences.

Matrimonial disputes involving private messages can quickly become complicated, and an early, calm assessment can prevent a situation from escalating. If you are unsure where you stand, you can reach out via Aapka Legal Advice for a confidential discussion of your situation and options. If a criminal complaint has already been filed or threatened, experienced Top Criminal Lawyers in India | Aapka Legal Advice can advise on bail, quashing, and defence. Our panel of retired judges, available for case reviews, strategy discussions, and second opinions, can also work alongside our criminal lawyers to assess how a court is likely to view your facts.

Let us now consider the civil consequences, because these are often more significant than criminal ones. Under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, voluntary sexual intercourse with a person other than one's spouse is a ground for divorce. A private conversation alone does not prove adultery, but it may be used as part of the evidence. Under Section 13(1)(ia), cruelty is also a ground for divorce. In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007), the Supreme Court gave illustrative examples of mental cruelty, which courts assess based on the overall conduct of the parties.

Maintenance may also be affected. Under Section 144(4) of the BNSS (formerly Section 125(4) CrPC), a wife is not entitled to maintenance from her husband if she is living in adultery. Courts have interpreted "living in adultery" to mean a continuous course of adulterous conduct, not a single lapse or a private conversation. So a conversation, by itself, would not normally defeat a maintenance claim. The full factual context always matters.

Child custody decisions are based on the welfare of the child, not on punishing either parent. Courts do not ordinarily deny custody merely because one parent had a private conversation or even a relationship with someone else, unless it directly harms the child's wellbeing. Under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the child's welfare is the paramount consideration.

What if your spouse files a false or exaggerated complaint out of anger? This is a genuine concern in matrimonial disputes, and the law provides safeguards. In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), the Supreme Court held that arrest in cruelty cases must not be automatic, and police must follow the requirements now in Section 35 of the BNSS. For offences punishable with up to seven years, the police should usually issue a notice of appearance under Section 35(3) instead of arresting.

Additional safeguards apply in cruelty cases. In Shivangi Bansal v. Sahib Bansal (2025), the Supreme Court endorsed guidelines providing a two-month cooling period after an FIR in cases under Section 498A IPC (now Section 85 BNS), during which no arrest or coercive action is taken and the matter is referred to a Family Welfare Committee. Courts have also warned against broad, general allegations against husbands' relatives. In Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (2022), the Supreme Court quashed proceedings against relatives based on vague and general allegations.

If you fear arrest, you can apply for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS (formerly Section 438 CrPC) before the Sessions Court or the High Court. If arrested, you may seek regular bail under Section 480 or Section 483 of the BNSS. Your constitutional rights under Article 21 (personal liberty), Article 22 (rights on arrest), and Article 20(3) (protection against self-incrimination) apply throughout. Do not make written admissions or sign statements without legal advice.

If the complaint is false or legally baseless, you can seek quashing before the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC) or Article 226 of the Constitution. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), the Supreme Court identified categories in which proceedings can be quashed, including allegations that disclose no offence and complaints filed with malice. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010), the Supreme Court noted the tendency to over-implicate family members in matrimonial complaints and urged courts to examine such cases carefully.

There are also steps you should take to protect yourself. Do not delete messages or conversations in a panic, because destroying potential evidence can later be portrayed negatively. At the same time, do not share the private conversation with others or post about the dispute on social media. Avoid angry exchanges with your spouse in writing, because messages sent in the heat of the moment are often used in court. Keep a calm, factual record of any threats or demands your spouse makes.

If your spouse has accessed your devices without permission or is threatening you, preserve evidence of that conduct too. Take screenshots of threatening messages, note dates and times, and consider having your devices checked for spyware by a qualified expert. Electronic evidence must be supported by a certificate under Section 63 of the BSA (formerly Section 65B of the Evidence Act), as held in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020). Change your passwords and enable two-factor authentication.

If you are a woman whose husband is harassing, threatening, or monitoring you over a private conversation, you have further remedies. Under Section 3 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, emotional and verbal abuse, including humiliation, insults, and threats, is domestic violence. Under Sections 12 and 18, you can seek protection orders from the Magistrate. You may also file a complaint of cruelty under Section 85 of the BNS if the conduct is serious and continuing.

If you are a man facing threats from your wife, the law still protects you. Criminal intimidation under Section 351 of the BNS, extortion under Section 308, defamation under Section 356, and IT Act offences for unauthorised access apply regardless of gender. You can file a complaint with the police, escalate to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) of the BNSS if necessary, or approach the Magistrate under Section 175(3) or Section 223.

Mediation and counselling can often prevent a hurt reaction from turning into a legal battle. Family courts under the Family Courts Act, 1984 are required to make efforts at reconciliation, and many courts have mediation centres. Section 9 of the Family Courts Act requires the court to attempt settlement where possible. A neutral counsellor can help both spouses talk through the issue honestly before positions harden. Many disputes that begin with a misunderstood conversation are resolved this way.

If the relationship is irretrievably broken, mutual consent divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act offers a dignified route. In Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017), the Supreme Court held that the six-month waiting period can be waived in appropriate cases. In Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023), a Constitution Bench held that the Supreme Court can dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown under Article 142. These routes allow couples to separate without prolonged criminal litigation.

If your spouse files a deliberately false criminal complaint, further recourse may be available after the case ends. Remedies include a complaint for false information to a public servant under Section 217 of the BNS (formerly Section 182 IPC), false charge of an offence under Section 248 (formerly Section 211 IPC), and defamation under Section 356. A civil suit for malicious prosecution may also be possible. Prosecution for false charges usually requires a complaint by the court under Section 215 read with Section 379 of the BNSS. It is wise to pursue such steps only after your own case has concluded in your favour.

Let me summarise the position simply. A private conversation with someone else is not a crime, and adultery has not been a criminal offence since Joseph Shine in 2018. Criminal liability can arise only if the content of the conversation itself is unlawful, if it involves sharing your spouse's private material or defaming them, or if it forms part of a broader pattern of cruelty. Your spouse may use the conversation in a divorce or maintenance case, but accessing your devices without permission, threatening you, or blackmailing you may expose your spouse to criminal liability.

In conclusion, a criminal complaint by spouse over a private conversation is unlikely to succeed on that basis alone, because the law protects your privacy and no longer criminalises adultery. Matrimonial disputes can still escalate, however, so stay calm, preserve evidence, avoid public statements, and take confidential legal advice before responding. If a criminal complaint by spouse has been filed or threatened, remedies such as anticipatory bail, quashing, and mediation can protect you. With timely guidance, you can respond to a criminal complaint by spouse confidently while protecting your rights, your privacy, and your future.