The Chhattisgarh High Court has observed that a husband cannot compel his wife to share private information, communications, personal belongings and even passwords of mobile phones and bank accounts.
The Bench of Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey also observed that any such compulsion by the husband shall amount to infringement of privacy and would also potentially lead to invocation of the provisions of the domestic violence act.
The petitioner-husband had filed a petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) under the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage on the ground of ‘cruelty’ before the Family Court. The wife filed her written statement denying the averments made by the petitioner.
During the course of divorce proceedings, the petitioner made an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Durg seeking the CDR of the respondent-wife as he doubted her character. A similar application was made before the Family Court seeking a direction to the authorities to furnish the respondent’s call records, which was rejected. Hence, the rejection order was impugned before the High Court.
The Court noted that the divorce petition was filed on the ground of ‘cruelty’ and not on the ground of ‘adultery’.
Having regard for the law settled through landmark precedents like Justice (Retd.) KS Puttaswamy & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2017), PUCL v. Union of India (1996) and Mr. X v. Hospital Z (1998), the Court observed that the right to privacy includes the preservation of personal intimacies, the sanctity of marriage and sexual orientation. Ergo, the Family Court was held to be correct in rejecting the plea.
Justice Pandey went on to observe that spouses have right to privacy within their marriage which is protected by Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court also opined that neither spouse can arbitrarily infringe upon the other’s personal space, autonomy and communication. While marital relationships involve shared lives, he said, it does not negate individual privacy rights.
Accordingly, the rejection of petitioner’s plea seeking call details was upheld since allowing the same would result in infringement of right to privacy of the respondent-wife.
