Marriage doesn't override privacy: Chhattisgarh HC rejects plea for wife's call records
RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a petition seeking the call detail records (CDR) of a wife's cellphone, observing that privacy is a constitutionally protected right under Article 21, encompassing personal intimacies and the sanctity of marriage.
The court stated, 'Marriage does 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 for the cellphone 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.
'
Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey upheld the order passed by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, which rejected the husband's application for his wife's CDR. The couple married on 4 July 2022, in Sankara, Rajnandgaon. The husband filed for dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging a drastic change in his wife's behaviour soon after she visited her parents' house and that she misbehaved with his mother and brother.
He also claimed she refused to return with him after going to her parental house again in September-October 2022.
The husband initially sought restitution of conjugal rights. Subsequently, the wife filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC and also initiated domestic violence proceedings against her in-laws. A complaint was also lodged at Mahila Thana, Rajnandgaon, against her in-laws. The husband then filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty.
The petitioner approached the Senior Superintendent of Police, Durg, on 24 January 2024, and again on 30 November 2023, seeking the wife's CDR, citing doubts about her character. He then moved the Family Court on 12 October 2023, with a similar request. The husband's written arguments before the Family Court alleged that his wife frequently spoke to her brother-in-law (jija) for extended periods, suggesting a possible illicit relationship and stating that the CDR was necessary for the case.
The Family Court rejected this application on 27 June 2024.
The High Court noted that the divorce petition was filed solely on the ground of cruelty, with no initial allegation of adultery. Such allegations appeared for the first time in the application to the Senior Superintendent of Police and were reiterated in written arguments before the Family Court. Justice Pandey cited the Supreme Court's judgement in KS Puttaswamy and Another vs.
Union of India and Others, which held privacy as a fundamental right, and People's Union for Civil Liberties v.
Union of India, which established the right to privacy in telephone conversations.
The court observed that allowing the application for CDR would violate the wife's right to privacy and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21. It stated that marriage does not grant a husband automatic access to his wife's private information, communications, and personal belongings, and compelling her to share cellphone or bank account passwords would amount to a violation of privacy and potential domestic violence.
The High Court found no grounds to interfere with the Family Court's order and dismissed the petition.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Judge cash burning case: MPs submit notices for Justice Yashwant Varma's removal to LS Speaker, RS Chairman
Parliamentarians on Monday submitted notices of a motion to the presiding officers of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha for the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma, from whose New Delhi residence burnt wads of currency notes were found during a fire incident. A bipartisan delegation submitted a notice, bearing the signatures of 145 Lok Sabha members, for the removal of Justice Varma to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla. The notice was submitted under Articles 124, 217 and 218 of the Constitution. The signatories included Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi, BJP leaders Ravi Shankar Prasad and Anurag Thakur, NCP-SP leader Supriya Sule, Congress leaders KC Venugopal and K Suresh, DMK leader TR Baalu, RSP member NK Premachandran and IUML member ET Mohammed Basheer, among others. A similar removal notice was submitted by 63 Rajya Sabha members to RS Chairman Jagdeep Dhankar. "Sixty-three opposition MPs, including those from AAP and INDIA bloc parties, have given a notice to the Rajya Sabha Chairman for removal of Justice Varma," Congress member Syed Naseer Hussain said. He also said, although Trinamool Congress (TMC) members were not present on Monday, they are on board on the issue and will submit their signatures later. According to the Judges (Inquiry) Act, when notices of a motion are submitted on the same day in both the Houses of the Parliament, a committee to examine the charges levelled against the judge will be constituted by the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman. The panel comprising a senior judge of the Supreme Court, a sitting chief justice of a high court and a distinguished jurist will then probe the charges levelled against Justice Varma and will be asked to come out with a report in three months. The inquiry report will be tabled in Parliament, followed by a discussion in both Houses after which there will be voting on the motion for the removal of Justice Varma. Following the cash controversy, Justice Varma was repatriated from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Russian woman in custody battle seems to have left India, says Centre; ‘absolutely not acceptable' remarks Supreme Court
The Centre on Monday informed the Supreme Court that the Russian woman caught in a dispute with her Indian husband over the custody of their minor child, and who was reported missing from her Delhi home since July 7, may have already reached her home country, travelling through Nepal and the UAE. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati informed a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, 'We are saying only on the basis of her email IP address login. Airlines have not, so far, responded to us because it was Saturday and Sunday (the matter was last heard on July 18, Friday), but we will get a confirmation… But on the IP address, we have located her presence. July 7 is when she left her home, on July 8 she is in Bihar, then Nepal on July 11 and 12, and then Russia on July 16'. Justice Kant said he and Justice Bagchi were discussing that it is the safest route to flee from India. When the court asked if there were CCTV visuals, Bhati said, 'We are still investigating. This is what we have found so far. We will investigate and continue to give reports to the court.' Justice Kant referred to the status report submitted by the Delhi Police Commissioner and said that the woman had boarded an Air Arabia flight from Nepal. Bhati said, 'We have the boarding pass, but we need to have confirmation from the airlines. We can't place it before your Lordships till it is confirmed through proper channels.' The bench also wondered about their passports. 'How were the passports released? Does it not show active collusion and connivance of embassy officials?' asked Justice Kant. Bhati said, 'We are still investigating. The Delhi Police are using the office of the Ministry of External Affairs to do this. We will also be using the diplomatic channels for her to be brought back to face the law.' 'This is absolutely not acceptable to us at any cost. File an affidavit that you are satisfied with your information, that this is how she is involved. Then, we propose to pass an order. This is definitely a gross case of contempt. Then we will see (about) the red corner notice and you will have to activate your diplomatic channels.' ASG Bhati pointed out that as reflected in an order of the court, the child's passport was surrendered. Justice Kant said, 'It means duplicate passports were prepared and those were prepared by the officials of the Russian embassy… Let the Russian embassy also give in writing….' Calling for a fresh status report, the bench said it will hear the matter after a week. The woman had initially approached the court to resolve the custody dispute, and the SC passed orders in the matter from time to time. The parents had been living separately in Delhi on the court's direction, with both sharing responsibility for the child. In May, the court granted the father exclusive custody for four days a week, and the mother retained custody for the remaining three days. Earlier this month, the father returned to the Supreme Court, alleging that both the mother and the child had gone missing. He claimed that the mother had been seen entering the Russian Embassy in Delhi accompanied by a diplomat. Following this, the Supreme Court directed authorities to locate the missing minor, hand over the child to the father, and prevent the mother from leaving India.
Mint
2 hours ago
- Mint
Viceroy rebuts former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud's legal opinion on its Vedanta report
Mumbai: US-based short-seller Viceroy Research has disputed former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud's legal opinion on its allegations of financial misconduct and misrepresentation against Vedanta Group. Viceroy argued that Chandrachud's legal opinion did not answer questions raised by it with regards to dividend payments and alleged financial mismanagement at the mining and minerals conglomerate. Justice Chandrachud's opinion 'fails to refute, investigate, or even engage with a single substantive financial allegation in our reports,' the short-seller said in a report on Monday, 21 July, its eighth note on Vedanta in 13 days. Vedanta has consistently denied Viceroy's allegations, terming the accusations baseless. Justice Chandrachud in his legal opinion to Vedanta, which was made public on Friday, said Viceroy's first report on billionaire Anil Agarwal's group, published on 9 July, lacked credibility, and the researchers behind the report had 'dubious credentials'. He said he relied on information shared by Vedanta to arrive at this opinion since Viceroy's website had no information in this regard. The former Chief Justice also highlighted Viceroy's interest in profiteering from a possible rout in Vedanta Resources' commercial papers as a result of the short-seller's reports. He also said he suspected the timing of the report, coming just as India-listed Vedanta Ltd is headed for a demerger. In April, Viceroy Research took a short position on the bonds of Vedanta Resources Ltd, the London-based unlisted holding company of the Vedanta Group, according to Fraser Perring, founder of Viceroy Research, who didn't disclose the quantum of his firm's exposure. Viceroy argued that Chandrachud's legal opinion relied entirely on 'management representations without questioning', the short-seller said, adding that the opinion failed to dispute any of its findings, conclusions, or concerns. 'When faced with serious allegations backed by detailed financial evidence, the company responded not with transparency, but with a character assassination attempt dressed in legal language,' the short-seller said in its latest report. Viceroy also claimed Vedanta had to pay for a legal opinion to defend its parent company against claims of stealing money or misusing the subsidiary's funds. Vedanta Resources holds a majority stake in India-listed Vedanta Ltd through several intermediaries. Hindustan Zinc Ltd is a subsidiary of Vedanta Ltd. Justice Chandrachud declined to comment on the matter. He explained that his role was professional in nature and the opinion given was protected by professional privilege. 'It is inappropriate to discuss anything pertaining to it in the public realm,' he said. Vedanta Group did not immediately reply to Mint's emailed queries on Viceroy's rebuttal. In his legal opinion, Justice Chandrachud said the transactions disclosed in financial statements and regulatory filings by Vedanta showed there was transparency and compliance with regulations. Such disclosures should be presumed legitimate unless there was clear evidence to prove otherwise, he opined. To this, Viceroy argued that mere disclosure did not confirm legality of the transactions. Justice Chandrachud also said Viceroy Research's report contained serious allegations tarnishing the Vedanta Group's image and reputation. 'The report contains serious imputations such as 'ponzi scheme' and 'parasite', which have caused harm to querist's (here Vedanta Ltd) business and reputation,' he said, adding that Vedanta was well placed to seek legal remedies under such circumstances. Former trial court judge Rishabh Gandhi said dismissing Chandrachud's report as just an opinion was reductive and misleading. 'A legal opinion—an opinion rendered by a legal expert based on applicable law and the facts presented—when issued by a highly regarded authority like the former Chief Justice of India, carries considerable legal and institutional credibility,' said Gandhi, who is also the founder of law firm Rishabh Gandhi & Associates. Gandhi explained that most legal opinions are based on a detailed review of documents, statutory interpretation, and precedent, primarily to confirm legal compliance, and enforceability of corporate actions such as dividend declarations, inter-company transactions, or board resolutions. Gandhi, however, clarified that while Chandrachud's legal opinion likely affirmed the legal permissibility of Vedanta's transactions and dividend policies under Indian corporate law, it did not address the broader concerns around financial prudence, related-party dynamics, or cash flow impact. 'If Vedanta wishes to credibly address Viceroy's allegations and rebut the perception that the legal opinion is merely a public relations exercise, it would be prudentto commission an independent financial or forensic audit,' Gandhi said. Viceroy has accused Vedanta Group of alleged financial misconduct and misrepresentation, making empty promises to shore up share prices, manipulating asset values, raising off-balance sheet loans, and corporate governance lapses, Mint reported on 9 July. At Vedanta's annual general meeting on 10 July, shareholders reposed their confidence in the company. 'Different investors have different concerns as they view things differently,' said Shriram Subramanian, managing director of proxy advisory firm InGovern. 'Viceroy is a short seller and has a thesis and a short position. Other investors and stakeholders may have a different thesis.' If investors were truly concerned about Viceroy's allegations, Vedanta's stock would have seen a sharp decline, which hasn't happened, he said. On 9 July, when Viceroy published its first report on the mining conglomerate, Vedanta Ltd shares declined as much as 8% intraday to ₹ 420.65 apiece before recouping some of the losses following a clarification from the company to settle at ₹ 441.30, down 3.29% on the NSE. The shares have since recovered. On Monday, Vedanta ended 2% higher at ₹ 454.90 per share.
