This is a genuinely unsettled area, and the honest answer is that it depends on the court, the nature of the recording, and how carefully it was preserved.
The tension
On one side, a recording can be the only proof of what was said in a private confrontation. On the other, K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) established privacy as a fundamental right, and courts have been increasingly uncomfortable with a spouse covertly recording the other. Different High Courts have gone different ways on whether such recordings can be relied on in matrimonial proceedings, and the position is still developing.
The procedural requirement you cannot skip
Even where a recording is otherwise admissible, it is electronic evidence. Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which replaced the Indian Evidence Act from 1 July 2024, an electronic record produced other than by the original device requires a certificate under Section 63 (the successor to Section 65B of the old Act). Without it, the recording is very likely to be excluded regardless of its content.
The single commonest failure is a party who has forwarded a clip to themselves on WhatsApp several times, and no longer has the original handset. The court then has no primary evidence and no reliable chain. Keep the original device, do not factory reset it, do not edit or trim the file, and take advice on getting the certificate before you rely on it.
What tends to be treated more favourably
- A recording of a conversation you were a party to, rather than interception of the other spouse's calls with third parties
- Complete recordings rather than selected fragments, because edited clips invite the argument that context has been removed
- Recordings corroborated by other material, such as messages, medical records or witnesses
What is likely to backfire
Installing spyware on a spouse's phone, accessing their email or cloud account without authorisation, or intercepting their calls with others. Beyond admissibility, that conduct can attract liability under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and it tends to damage your credibility with the judge far more than the recording helps.