Registration Of FIR Is Mandatory If Information Ex Facie Discloses Commission Of  Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court 'No Res Judicata': Supreme Court Holds Rejection Of Section 156(3) CrPC Plea Is No Bar To Subsequent Registration Of FIR Auto Dealers' Referral Charges From Banks & Insurers Constitute 'Business Auxiliary Service', But No Penalty If Tax Paid Before Show Cause Notice: Supreme Court MACT | Appellate Courts Must Liberally Admit Additional Evidence Under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC To Compute 'Just Compensation': Supreme Court MACT | Post-Accident Vehicle Position On Sketch Cannot Be Sole Basis To Infer Contributory Negligence: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To ₹50.8 Lakhs 'Sanction Under Section 19(1)(c) PC Act Must Be Granted By Removing Authority': Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction Mere Recovery Of Money Cannot Resurrect Prosecution Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua: Supreme Court Lok Adalat Awards Without Signatures Of All Rival Claimants Are Invalid, Order I Rule 8 CPC Inapplicable: Supreme Court Lok Adalat Cannot Decide Title Disputes, Mere Physical Possession Doesn't Prove Ownership": Supreme Court Quashes Land Acquisition Awards Power Discoms Can't Escape Liability: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Damages For Death Caused By Snapped Live Wires Lying On Ground Extra-Judicial Confessions To Village Administrative Officers Cannot Be Accepted As Gospel Truth Without Signatures And Corroboration: Madras High Court Acquits Murder Accused 'Article 21 Trumps UAPA Rigors': Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To PFI Members After 5 Years In Jail Due To 'Sluggish' Trial" Daughters Cannot Be Denied Equal Share: Orissa High Court Upholds Compensation Apportionment In Favor Of Daughters Under Hindu Succession Act Cannot Reopen Closed Chapter Years Later: Calcutta High Court Dismisses BSF Ex-Head Constable's Plea Claiming Voluntary Retirement Was Extracted Under Coercion Long-Standing Relationship And Public Recognition Prove Valid Marriage: Karnataka High Court Upholds Second Wife's Right To 1/3rd Share In Property Collector Becomes Functus Officio Once Duty Is Determined: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Penalty On Stamp Duty Deficiency Eyewitness Testimony Contradicted By Medical Evidence Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Woman In IPC 302 Case

Delhi High Court upholds wife's right to access husband's call records and hotel stay details in adultery case

06 September 2024 5:11 AM

By: Admin


Delhi High Court has ruled that the right to privacy is not an absolute right and that it can be subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public morality. The court was hearing a petition filed by a husband who had challenged the Family Court's order directing him to submit the call details of his mobile phone and the identity of the occupants of the hotel room where he had stayed during a particular period, following a divorce petition filed by his wife on the grounds of adultery.

The petitioner contended that the right to privacy is a fundamental right, and he cannot be compelled to disclose the information sought by his wife. However, the court found that the husband was taking contradictory stands in his pleadings and had not come forward to voluntarily disclose the details about the occupants of the hotel room. In this regard, the court referred to the decision in Joseph Shine, wherein the Supreme Court emphasised that the freedom to have a consensual sexual relationship outside marriage by a married person does not warrant protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The court further referred to the decision in Hospital Z, wherein the Supreme Court held that where there is a clash of two Fundamental Rights, the right which would advance the public morality or public interest would alone be enforced through the process of court.

The court held that the petitioner's claim was based solely on the right to privacy, which is not an absolute right, whereas the respondent's prayer was based not only on morality but also on specific rights granted under the Hindu Marriage Act and the Family Courts Act. Therefore, the court found no reason to interfere with the impugned orders and held that the respondent's right must prevail.

The court also referred to the decisions in Surjit Singh, Vishwas Shetty, and Sangeeta, but found that the same were not applicable to the facts of the present case. The court dismissed the petition and vacated all interim orders.

Date of Decision: 10.05.2023

SACHIN ARORA   vs   MANJU ARORA        

Latest Legal News