Latest news with #RakeshMohanPandey
Time of India
17-07-2025
- Time of India
Man can't demand access to wife's call detail records: Chhattisgarh HC
Representative photo RAIPUR: A husband cannot demand access to his spouse's personal information or communication as that would amount to infringement of privacy, Chhattisgarh high court has ruled, dismissing a man's plea seeking the call detail records (CDR) of his wife. Asserting that privacy is a constitutionally protected right under Article 21 that marriage cannot override, the court said forcing the wife to share her phone call or bank account details could even attract domestic violence charges. 'Marriage does not grant the husband automatic access to the wife's private information, communications and personal belongings. The husband cannot compel his 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 said, upholding a Durg family court's order. The first additional principal judge of family court had in June last year rejected his application for his wife's CDR. He argued his wife frequently spoke to her brother-in-law for long periods, suggesting a possible illicit relationship.
Time of India
17-07-2025
- Time of India
Marriage doesn't override privacy: Chhattisgarh HC rejects plea for wife's call records
Chhattisgarh HC 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.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
16-07-2025
- Business Standard
Husband can't seek wife's private info or passwords: Chhattisgarh HC
A husband has no legal right to demand access to his wife's personal information, including her phone and bank passwords, the Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled, according to a report by LiveLaw. The observation was made by Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey while hearing a plea filed by a man whose request for his wife's call detail records (CDRs) was rejected by the Family Court. The petitioner had moved the High Court challenging that order, the report added. The bench stated that any such compulsion by a husband amounts to a breach of the wife's right to privacy and would invite action under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. '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 of the cellphone or bank account and such an act would amount to a violation of privacy and potentially domestic violence,' the Court said, as reported by LiveLaw. Background The man filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, citing cruelty. His wife denied the allegations. During proceedings, he filed applications with the Senior Superintendent of Police (Durg) and the Family Court, seeking her CDRs on suspicion of an affair. The Family Court dismissed the plea, stating that the information was not relevant to the case, LiveLaw reported. The High Court upheld that order, noting that the husband had not filed for divorce on grounds of adultery, nor had he established the relevance of the call records. The claim regarding a relationship between the wife and her brother-in-law was raised for the first time in the CDR application. Citing previous judgments, the Court said that privacy within marriage is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. 'The right to engage in mobile conversations in the privacy of one's home or office without interference is certainly protected under the right to privacy. Such conversations are often intimate and confidential in nature and constitute an important facet of a person's private life,' Justice Pandey said, as quoted by LiveLaw. He also observed that while spouses share a life, they do not surrender their individual autonomy or personal boundaries.
News18
31-05-2025
- Politics
- News18
Chhattisgarh HC Refuses To Quash FIR Against Professors Accused Of Forcing Namaz At NSS Camp
Last Updated: An FIR was lodged by three students who alleged that during the National Service Scheme camp in Kota, they were compelled to offer Namaz despite being adherents of the Hindu faith The Chhattisgarh High Court recently dismissed two petitions filed by assistant professors of Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur, seeking quashing of an FIR accusing them of coercing Hindu students to offer Namaz during a university-run National Service Scheme (NSS) camp. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey refused to interfere with the investigation at this stage, observing that the matter is still under probe and a charge sheet is yet to be filed. An FIR was lodged by three students—Astik Sahu, Adarsh Kumar Chaturvedi, and Naveen Kumar—who alleged that during the National Service Scheme (NSS) camp held at Shivtarai, Kota, between March 26 and April 1, they were compelled to offer Namaz despite being adherents of the Hindu faith. The FIR was registered under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Sections 190, 196, 197, 299, and 302, along with Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Act, 1968. Dilip Jha, the NSS camp coordinator, and several other university faculty members were named as accused in the case. They contended that the FIR was politically motivated, pointing to a two-week delay in filing the complaint and highlighting that only three out of over 150 participating students had raised such allegations. They further argued that a few Muslim students had voluntarily offered Namaz and there was no coercion on any participant. Despite these arguments, the State opposed the petitions, stating that the investigation had already unearthed prima facie evidence and that witness statements backed the allegations. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021), the bench emphasised that courts should rarely quash FIRs at an initial stage unless the complaint is patently frivolous or lacks even basic ingredients of a criminal offence. 'The petitioners are already on bail, the investigation is going on and the charge sheet has not been filed yet, therefore, it would not be appropriate to make any observations on the merits of the case," the bench observed, dismissing both petitions. First Published:
Time of India
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Chhattisgarh HC refuses to quash FIR against professors accused of forcing Hindu students to offer Namaz
RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed petitions filed by Assistant Professors from Guru Ghasidas (Central) University, seeking to quash an FIR registered against them for allegedly compelling Hindu students to offer Namaz. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey observed that it would be premature to interfere with the investigation at this stage. The petitioners, including Dilip Jha, Coordinator of a National Service Scheme (NSS) camp, and six others including Madhulika Singh, Suryabhan Singh, Dr. Jyoti Verma, Prashant Vaishnav, Basant Kumar, Dr. Niraj Kumar, had moved the High Court to quash FIR No. 417 of 2025, registered at Kota police station, Bilaspur. The FIR invokes Sections 190, 196(1)(b), 197(1)(b), 197(1)(c), 299, and 302 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Act, 1968. The case stems from a complaint lodged by three students, Astik Sahu, Adarsh Kumar Chaturvedi, and Naveen Kumar, who participated in an NSS camp organised by the university at Shivtarai, Kota, from March 26 to April 1, 2025. The complainants, all Hindu, alleged that the professors compelled them to offer Namaz. Counsel for the petitioners, Awadh Tripathi, argued that the complaint, lodged on April 14, 2025, was delayed by 14-15 days and was politically motivated. He stated that while 150 Hindu students attended the camp, only three lodged the FIR. He also submitted that four Muslim students at the camp offered Namaz, but no compulsion was exerted on Hindu participants. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Mr. Tripathi informed the court that the petitioners have already been granted bail by the trial court. He further contended that the essential ingredients of the sections invoked in the FIR were not made out against the petitioners. Arvind Dubey, government counsel for the State, opposed the petitions, asserting that there are serious allegations against the professors. He argued that the petitioners used words and visible representations to compel Hindu complainants to offer Namaz. The counsel also stated that the investigation is ongoing, and witnesses have supported the allegations, requesting the court to dismiss the petitions. After hearing both parties and reviewing the available records, the High Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2021), which states that courts should not thwart investigations into cognizable offences at an initial stage. The Supreme Court judgment also highlights that quashing an FIR should be an exception rather than a rule and that police must be allowed to complete their investigation. Considering that the petitioners are on bail and the investigation is still underway, the High Court concluded that it would not be appropriate to make any observations on the merits of the case. Consequently, both petitions were dismissed.
