The Chhattisgarh High Court, in a significant ruling on marital privacy, has held that a marriage does not grant a husband automatic access to his wife’s private information, including her mobile phone passwords or bank account details. The Court affirmed that compelling a wife to share such details would amount to a violation of her fundamental right to privacy and could potentially constitute domestic violence.
Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey dismissed a husband’s writ petition challenging a Family Court order that had refused his request to summon his wife’s call detail records (CDR). The High Court ruled that allowing such an application based on a mere suspicion of adultery, especially when it was not a ground in the original divorce petition, would be a violation of the wife’s right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a matrimonial dispute between a couple married on July 4, 2022. The husband filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground of cruelty. He alleged that 15 days after the marriage, his wife’s behaviour changed after visiting her parents’ house, and she subsequently misbehaved with his family and refused to return to the matrimonial home.
Prior to the divorce petition, the husband had filed for restitution of conjugal rights. The wife, in turn, had filed for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., initiated proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, and lodged a complaint at a Mahila Thana.
During the divorce proceedings, the husband submitted applications to the Senior Superintendent of Police and later to the Family Court, Durg, seeking to obtain his wife’s call detail records. The Family Court rejected this application on June 27, 2024, leading the husband to file the present writ petition before the High Court.
Arguments of the Petitioner
The counsel for the petitioner-husband argued that there were frequent and lengthy phone calls between the respondent-wife and her brother-in-law, which raised suspicion of an illicit relationship. It was submitted that the production of the call detail records was essential to substantiate the allegation of adultery and that the Family Court had erred in rejecting the application without providing sufficient reasons.
High Court’s Analysis and Decision
The High Court, after a thorough review of the case records, observed that the petition for divorce was filed solely on the ground of cruelty. The judgment noted, “No allegation with regard to adultery has been made in the entire petition.” The allegation of adultery was raised for the first time in an application to the police and was only explicitly mentioned in the written arguments before the Family Court, not in the formal pleadings. The application for the CDR itself did not specify the relevance of the records or make any allegation of adultery.
Justice Pandey emphasized the settled legal position that call detail records cannot be summoned on the basis of vague allegations or suspicion.
The Court heavily relied on the fundamental right to privacy as established by the Supreme Court. Citing K.S. Puttaswamy and Another vs. Union of India and Others, the judgment reiterated that privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 and “includes at its core the preservation of personal intimacies, the sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, the home and sexual orientation.”
The Court also referred to People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, which held that telephone conversations are an “important facet of a man’s private life” and that the right to hold such conversations without interference is protected by the right to privacy.
In its own powerful observations on privacy within a marriage, the High Court stated:
“In our Constitution, both husbands and wives have a fundamental right to privacy within their marriage and this right is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. This means neither spouse can arbitrarily infringe upon the other’s personal space, autonomy and communication.”
The judgment made it unequivocally clear that the institution of marriage does not extinguish an individual’s right to privacy. The Court further observed:
“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. There should be a balance between marital privacy and the need for transparency and at the same time trust in the relationship.”
Concluding that allowing the husband’s application would result in a “violation of the respondent’s right to privacy and the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the Family Court’s order. The petition was accordingly dismissed as being “devoid of merit.”
