Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court

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