In a powerful reaffirmation of a married woman’s right to privacy, bodily autonomy, and digital dignity, the Allahabad High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a man accused of recording and sharing an intimate video of his wife without her consent. The Court declared unequivocally that marriage does not grant a husband ownership or control over his wife, and such conduct constitutes a serious legal and moral violation.
Case Background
The matter arose from a criminal complaint filed under Section 67 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, which penalizes the publishing or transmission of obscene material in electronic form. The allegations were that the man secretly recorded an intimate act with his wife, later shared it on social media, and circulated it to third parties, including members of her family and community.
Following an investigation, a charge sheet was filed on 26.09.2022, and a cognizance order was passed on 30.09.2022. The accused approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of the proceedings, claiming no offence was made out as the woman was his legally wedded wife.
Key Legal Issues Involved
- Whether the marital relationship negates or modifies the requirement of consent in the recording and sharing of intimate content.
- Whether Section 67 of the IT Act can apply in cases involving a married couple, particularly where one spouse is the alleged victim of digital dissemination of obscene material.
- Whether the High Court, under its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should intervene in pending criminal proceedings when factual disputes are involved.
- Whether the FIR and charge sheet disclose a prima facie case justifying continuation of the trial.
Submissions of the Parties
Counsel for the applicant argued that no offence was made out under the IT Act because the video involved a consensual act between husband and wife and there was no evidence of uploading or sharing by the applicant. They also pointed to a possibility of compromise between the spouses, emphasizing that the complaint arose from domestic discord.
On the other hand, the State opposed the plea, asserting that consent is crucial not just to the act itself but also to its recording and dissemination. The act of secretly making and distributing such a video violated the wife’s fundamental rights and was clearly punishable under law, regardless of marital status.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Vinod Diwakar, presiding over the matter, rejected the plea to quash the case, delivering a strong message about the limits of marital privilege:
“Marriage does not grant a husband ownership or control over his wife, nor does it dilute her autonomy or right to privacy.”
The Court further held:
“Uploading an intimate video on Facebook and sharing it with others is a grave breach of the sanctity of the marital relationship. A husband is expected to honour the trust, faith, and confidence reposed in him by his wife.”
The judge observed that the right to privacy is an inalienable part of personal liberty, and a wife is not an extension of her husband, but an individual with her own agency, dignity, and rights.
Importantly, the Court declined to engage with the factual disputes raised, holding that such matters were best left for adjudication by the trial court:
“Adjudication of questions of fact and appreciation of evidence do not fall within the scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.”
The Court found no perversity, illegality, or abuse of process in the ongoing proceedings to warrant judicial interference.
The Court held that the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was “devoid of merit” and accordingly dismissed it, allowing the criminal trial to proceed.
