‘Marriage doesn't grant automatic access to private information' – Chhattisgarh HC dismisses man's petition seeking wife's call records
In his petition before the court, the petitioner claimed that a fortnight after the two married in 2022, his wife's behaviour 'changed drastically' after a visit to her parents' home and that she had 'misbehaved' with his mother and brother.
The man claims that he went to fetch her back in September and October that year but she refused, following which he approached a lower court for restitution of conjugal rights (including the right to live together, companionship, and sexual relations) under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. A week later, the woman filed a police complaint, and subsequently an application in court, accusing the man's parents and brother of domestic violence,
In January 2024, the man approached the police seeking his estranged wife's Call Data Record (CDR) and also filed a similar application in the family court saying he suspected her of having an 'illicit relationship' with her sister's husband and 'call detail records are necessary to substantiate allegations of adultery'.
When the family court dismissed the petition, he approached the high court, which said there was no allegation of adultery in the divorce petition and that accessing her call records would be a violation of the respondent's right to privacy.
'Now coming to the facts of the present case, it is evident that there is no allegation of adultery in the petition filed by the petitioner for the dissolution of marriage. Such allegations have been made for the first time in the written arguments. Moreover, in the application moved by the petitioner seeking call detail records, no allegations were made with regard to adultery,' the court said in its recent order.
Marriage did not grant the husband 'automatic access to the wife's private information, communications and personal belongings'.
'The husband cannot compel the wife to share her passwords of the cell phone or bank account and such an act would amount to a violation of privacy and potentially domestic violence. There should be a balance between marital privacy and the need for transparency and at the same time trust in the relationship,' the court said.
The right to privacy, the Bench said, 'encompasses the preservation of personal intimacies, the sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, the home, and sexual orientation. Any intrusion into this right would amount to a violation of the fundamental rights of the individual'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
a day ago
- New Indian Express
‘Russian woman may have left India with kid'
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday expressed its displeasure at the Centre's submission in a case that the Russian woman fighting with her estranged Indian husband for their child's custody has gone missing and probably went back to Russia. The two-judge Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi called the situation 'unacceptable' and observed that it was 'gross contempt of court'. The Bench said in its order on Monday: 'Her passport is seized. How could she get a duplicate passport? It could not have been possible without the help of some officials at the Russian Embassy. It is a gross contempt of court. It is totally unacceptable. We will be passing some harsh orders and direct for issuing a Red Corner Notice.' The Centre's submission that the woman had left India came as a surprise, as it had previously told the SC that she had not left the country, at least through legal means.
NDTV
2 days ago
- NDTV
Highway Blocked By Luxury Cars For Reels, Chhattisgarh High Court Slams Cops
Bilaspur: In a sharp rebuke, the Chhattisgarh High Court has pulled up the Bilaspur Police for failing to confiscate luxury cars that were illegally parked on National Highway-130 during a late-night photoshoot organised by a group of affluent young men to celebrate the purchase of a new car. Chief Justice Ramesh Kumar Sinha, heading a division bench with Justice BD Guru, expressed serious concern over the police's lenient action and demanded an explanation in the form of an affidavit from the state government. The court questioned why such a blatant violation, which caused traffic chaos on a key highway, only led to minor penal actions. The incident, which took place in the Hirri and Chakarbhatha police station areas, saw luxury cars parked across the Bilaspur-Raipur National Highway while professional cameramen and drones captured the moment all to film Instagram reels showcasing a fleet of high-end vehicles. One of the main accused, Vedansh Sharma, had reportedly bought two new expensive cars and was accompanied by a convoy of black SUVs. According to witnesses, the highway was blocked at night, with vehicles queued up on both sides, but no one dared to intervene as the group posed for the camera. The videos of the shoot, initially uploaded by Vedansh on Instagram, went viral, sparking public outrage, but the account was deleted soon after. The Bilaspur Police initially issued challans under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and claimed to have written to the Regional Transport Office (RTO) seeking the suspension of the drivers' licenses. However, no immediate seizure of vehicles was carried out, raising serious questions about the police's hesitation in acting against the influential individuals involved. Speaking to NDTV, Bilaspur SSP Rajnesh Singh confirmed that an FIR has now been registered and the process of vehicle seizure is underway. "Blocking a national highway is a criminal offence. All involved will face strict legal consequences," he said. The High Court took suo motu cognisance of the matter after the video circulated widely on social media and was brought to the court's attention as a public interest litigation (PIL). The bench has directed the state government to respond to whether sufficient action has been taken and why serious sections were not invoked earlier.
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Indian Express
One judge upholds death sentence, other acquits: Split ruling in Jharkhand HC on Maoist ambush that killed 6 cops
Twelve years after a Maoist ambush in Jharkhand's Dumka district killed five policemen, the state High Court has delivered a split ruling. While one judge has upheld the lower court's order of capital punishment, the second one set aside the order and acquitted the two people accused in the case. While delivering the split ruling on July 17, a Division Bench of Justices Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Sanjay Prasad disagreed on whether there was enough evidence to sustain the conviction and the capital punishment that the Dumka sessions court had ordered in 2018. The ruling pertains to a Maoist ambush that killed Pakur SP Amarjit Balihar and five others on July 2, 2013. The SP and his team were on their way back from a meeting when some Maoists ambushed their vehicles and fatally shot them. Apart from the officer, five other policemen – Rajiv Kumar Sharma, Manoj Hembrom, Ashok Kumar Srivastava, Chandan Kumar Thapa, and Santosh Kumar Mandal – were killed. The attack left some others wounded. In 2018, the two accused — Pravir Murmu alias Pravir da and Santan Baskey alias Tala da — were sentenced to death. After hearing their criminal appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court delivered a 197-page judgement on July 17. Setting aside their conviction, Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay said eyewitnesses in the case – the policemen who survived the attack — could not credibly identify the accused. He also noted the lack of direct involvement of, or recovery of incriminating material from, the two convicts. Justice Prasad, however, took a divergent view and held that the eyewitnesses had identified Pravir and Tala in court and that 'the gruesome murder' of an IPS officer and his team 'did not evoke any sympathy'. Affirming the death sentence, Justice Prasad directed the state government to provide a compensation of Rs 2 crore to the family of the SP, and give a job in the rank of the deputy superintendent of police or the deputy collector to one of his children. He also ordered a compensation of Rs 50 lakh and Grade 4 government jobs to the families of the five other policemen. Special Public Prosecutor Vineet Kumar Vashistha said the split verdict means the case will now be referred to the Chief Justice for reassignment. He went on to say that Justice Prasad considered the case to fall under the 'rarest of rare' category. 'The matter will now be placed before the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court, who will reconstitute a bench to rehear the case,' he said. Shubham Tigga hails from Chhattisgarh and studied journalism at the Asian College of Journalism. He previously reported in Chhattisgarh on Indigenous issues and is deeply interested in covering socio-political, human rights, and environmental issues in mainland and NE India. Presently based in Pune, he reports on civil aviation, other transport sectors, urban mobility, the gig economy, commercial matters, and workers' unions. You can reach out to him on LinkedIn ... Read More
