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.
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.
You may also like
Nitish's power sop: 125 units free to all houses
5.8% Bihar voters yet to submit poll forms
Rescue teams use new AI technology in search for hillwalker missing since September
'Most consequential 3 seconds': Ex-Alaska Airlines pilot recalls attempting to shut off flight's engine mid-air; feared fatal end
PAC lens on EC's SIR drive, fake ID cards
