The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a man who sought directions to access his wife’s call records, calling it “violation of privacy”.
In his petition before the court, the petitioner claimed that a fortnight after the two married in 2022, his wife’s behaviour “changed drastically” after a visit to her parents’ home and that she had “misbehaved” with his mother and brother.
The man claims that he went to fetch her back in September and October that year but she refused, following which he approached a lower court for restitution of conjugal rights (including the right to live together, companionship, and sexual relations) under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. A week later, the woman filed a police complaint, and subsequently an application in court, accusing the man’s parents and brother of domestic violence,
In January 2024, the man approached the police seeking his estranged wife’s Call Data Record (CDR) and also filed a similar application in the family court saying he suspected her of having an “illicit relationship” with her sister’s husband and “call detail records are necessary to substantiate allegations of adultery”.
When the family court dismissed the petition, he approached the high court, which said there was no allegation of adultery in the divorce petition and that accessing her call records would be a violation of the respondent’s right to privacy.
“Now coming to the facts of the present case, it is evident that there is no allegation of adultery in the petition filed by the petitioner for the dissolution of marriage. Such allegations have been made for the first time in the written arguments. Moreover, in the application moved by the petitioner seeking call detail records, no allegations were made with regard to adultery,” the court said in its recent order.
Marriage did not grant the husband “automatic access to the wife’s private information, communications and personal belongings”.
Story continues below this ad
“The husband cannot compel the wife to share her passwords of the cell phone 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,” the court said.
The right to privacy, the Bench said, “encompasses the preservation of personal intimacies, the sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, the home, and sexual orientation. Any intrusion into this right would amount to a violation of the fundamental rights of the individual”.
