It will be considered as violation of privacy if husband seeks mobile tower location of wife’s lover to prove adultery: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has said on 30.11.2022 under Justice M Nagaprasanna in VS v. PKR & ANR. (WP 13165 of 2019) that disclosure of mobile tower location of the third person who is not a party to the proceedings would be considered as violation of privacy in case of matrimonial issues. Every person has a right to ensure that his/her privacy is not breached and can ensure the same in their incidental relationships.
FACTS
The 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent are wife and husband. After their marriage, the relationship turning sore, the wife files a petition before the Family Court seeking annulment of marriage with the 2nd respondent on account of cruelty. In the said proceedings, the husband files an application seeking call record details of the wife and her alleged paramour which the court allows. That is challenged before this Court by the wife in which she contended that none of the defense that she had let in qua the said interlocutory application is considered by the concerned Court. This Court, accepting the said contention, sets aside the order and directed the wife to prefer an application seeking review of the order. Answering the said application for review, the concerned Court refused to allow the said application but grants summoning of tower location details only from the concerned authority i.e., the mobile operator. The petitioner is the alleged paramour of the wife of the 2nd respondent as alleged by the husband. The said paramour is before this Court calling in question the said order on the ground that he is a third party to the proceedings. This Court, entertaining the petition, granted an interim order as prayed for, which is currently in operation.
JUDGEMENT
It was stated earlier that the petitioner is not a party to the proceedings. The allegation of the husband is that the wife has illicit relationship with the petitioner. The petition for divorce is not filed by the husband. It is the wife who initiates it against the husband seeking annulment of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent is that he wants his wife, there is a child born from the wedlock and child’s future is in jeopardy due to the act of the wife in having relationship with the petitioner. If this was the intention of the husband, he would not have waited for four long years as on date, in preferring a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights. He wants to fight the matrimonial case instituted by the wife for divorce and does not want to file a case for restitution of conjugal rights. Therefore, the intention of the husband is only to prove alleged adultery on the part of the wife for which reason the tower details of the third party cannot be permitted to be divulged. It would undoubtedly violate the right to privacy of the petitioner who is not a party, who is not put on notice and whose defence is not permitted to be projected even. Therefore, permitting tower details of the petitioner would be contrary to law without him being in the know of any proceedings between the husband and the wife, but only on an allegation of the husband that the wife is in illicit relationship with the petitioner.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, and best civil lawyer.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY VAISHNAVI SINGH