Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme 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