Husband can't get third-party call records to prove wife's affair - Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court, a husband cannot use phone records or tower information from a third party who is not a party to the case to support his claim that his wife committed adultery [Vishwas Shetty v. Preethi Rao]. When striking down a lower court ruling allowing the production of the petitioner's tower details, Justice M Nagaprasanna, a single judge, stated that informational privacy is an essential component of the right to privacy.

"The order that requires the petitioner's personal information to be presented to the court in a case in which he is not even a party, unquestionably infringes informational privacy...

According to the Court, the husband's fictitious argument that he wants to demonstrate an unlawful relationship between the petitioner and the wife cannot be used as justification for violating third parties' privacy. "The order that requires the petitioner's personal information to be presented to the court in a case in which he is not even a party, unquestionably infringes informational privacy... According to the Court, the husband's fictitious argument that he wants to demonstrate an unlawful relationship between the petitioner and the wife cannot be used as justification for violating third parties' privacy.

"The order that requires the petitioner's personal information to be presented to the court in a case in which he is not even a party, unquestionably infringes informational privacy...

According to the Court, the husband's fictitious argument that he wants to demonstrate an unlawful relationship between the petitioner and the wife cannot be used as justification for violating third parties' privacy.

Wife, however, filed a petition with the High Court asking for a review of the family court's ruling. The High Court denied the application but ordered the mobile operator—the relevant authority—to be the only source of tower information. In 2019, the petitioner (lover), a third party, claimed that the court's order to submit phone logs was a violation of his right to privacy because he was not a party to the proceedings. As a result, a temporary injunction against producing tower recordings was granted. The petitioner then submitted this current plea to overturn the family court's judgement, claiming that it violated his right to privacy. On the other hand, the husband argued that the call records were very necessary to refute the accusation of cruelty made by the wife, who only sought to have the marriage annulled due to her extramarital affair with the petitioner. The husband's attorney claimed that the child was born out of wedlock and that because of his wife's unlawful relationship with the petitioner, the child's future is in danger. The Court responded to this claim by saying that if this were the husband's objective, he would not have waited four long years before submitting a petition for the restoration of conjugal rights. The bench stated that the husband did not want to submit a lawsuit for restitution of conjugal rights and instead wanted to contest the marital case that the wife had started for divorce. He does not want to submit a case for the restoration of conjugal rights and instead wants to contest the marital case that the wife has started for divorce. The Court held that the third party's information cannot be revealed because the husband's goal is to solely demonstrate what is allegedly infidelity on the side of the wife. It stated that permitting the petitioner's tower specifications without him being aware of any legal actions involving the husband and wife would be against the law. "It is cliché to say that the right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty that the Indian Constitution guarantees to its citizens. The right to be "left alone" exists. The bench stated, "A person has a right to protect the privacy of his self, his family, his marriage, and other incidental relationships.

Vishwas Shetty vs Preethi Rao