Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Collector’s Appointment of Ex-Serviceman as Lambardar: Preference for Service to the State Valid Tax to Be Computed at 100% Under DTVSV Act, Rejects Inclusion of Belated Grounds in Disputed Tax: Bombay High Court Petitioner’s Father Did Not Fall Within Definition of Enemy – Kerala High Court Quashes Land Classification Under Enemy Property Act Calcutta High Court Upholds Cancellation of LPG Distributor LOI for Violating Guidelines Recording 'Reasons to Believe' is a Mandatory Safeguard, Not a Mere Formality Under PMLA: P&H High Court Illegality Is Incurable, Unauthorized Constructions Cannot Be Regularized: Bombay High Court Kerala High Court Quashes Tribunal’s Order Granting Retrospective UGC Benefits to Librarians Without Required Qualifications Order XLI Rule 27 CPC | No Evidence Can Be Admitted Beyond Pleadings, And Additional Evidence Cannot Be Allowed Merely To Fill Lacunae: Jharkhand High Court Quashing | Mere Heated Exchanges Over Loan Repayment Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Supreme Court Prisoner Transfers Must Prioritize Security and Prevent Gang Violence: Supreme Court Restores Intra-State Transfer Order Jurisdiction Under Section 100 CPC Is Conditional Upon Framing Substantial Questions of Law: Supreme Court Panchayat Election | Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Bar on Judicial Review During Election Process Encroachment Allegation Requires Concrete Evidence, Not Mere Surmises: Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea for Disqualification of Sarpanch Order Denying Permission for Peaceful Protest Rally Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Prolonged Custody Alone Cannot Justify Bail In Cases Involving Heinous Crimes: Delhi High Court Body Shaming and Sexually Colored Remarks Are Unacceptable In A Civilized Society: Kerala High Court No Mandatory Injunction Where Failure to Prove Ownership and Possession: Punjab and Haryana High Court Supreme Court Dismisses Article 32 Petition Seeking Declaration of Bombay High Court Judgment as Illegal Specific Relief Act | Power to Extend Time Under Section 28 Is Discretionary and Must Be Exercised Prudently: 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        

Similar News