In a significant ruling reinforcing the right to privacy within marriage, the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that forcing a spouse to share personal mobile phone or bank account passwords amounts to domestic violence and violates fundamental rights.
Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey, delivering the verdict, stated:
“Marriage does not grant the husband automatic access to the wife’s private information, communications and personal belongings. The husband cannot compel the wife to share her passwords of the cellphone or bank account and such an act would amount to a violation of privacy and potentially domestic violence.”
The case arose from a divorce petition filed by the husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, citing cruelty. In response, the wife denied the allegations. During proceedings, the husband sought his wife’s call detail records (CDRs) from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Durg, claiming suspicion over her character. When the family court rejected his plea, he approached the High Court.
The High Court, however, upheld the lower court’s decision, calling the husband’s suspicion vague and unjustified, and emphasised that it did not warrant an invasion of privacy.
“While marital relationships involve shared lives, it does not negate individual privacy rights,” the Court observed.
“There should be a balance between marital privacy and the need for transparency and at the same time trust in the relationship.”
Referring to the Supreme Court’s landmark judgments in KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India, People’s Union for Civil Liberties, and Mr X v. Hospital Z, the Court reiterated that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“The right to engage in mobile conversations in the privacy of one’s home or office without interference is certainly protected under the right to privacy. Such conversations are often intimate and confidential in nature and constitute an important facet of a person’s private life,” the judgment noted.
Accordingly, the petitioner’s request for access to his wife’s CDRs was denied.
Advocate Aman Tamrakar appeared for the petitioner.
