Husband Can't Claim Ownership Of Wife's Body, Privacy, Her Consent Paramount; Sharing Intimate Acts' Video A Breach Of Trust: Allahabad HC

The Court underscored that a husband is expected to honour the trust, faith, and confidence reposed in him by his wife and that sharing videos related to their intimate relationship amounts to a violation of the inherent confidentiality that defines the bond between husband and wife.

A bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar added that a wife is not an extension of her husband but an individual with her own rights, desires, and agency and that respecting her bodily autonomy and privacy is not just a legal obligation but also a moral imperative of the Husband in fostering a truly equal relationship.

“The wife's body is her own property, and her consent remains paramount in all aspects of her personal and intimate life. The husband's role is not that of a master or owner but of an equal partner, bound to respect her autonomy and individuality. Attempts to control or violate these rights—whether through coercion, abuse or the non-consensual sharing of intimate details—constitute gross breaches of trust and legality,” the Single Judge remarked.

The Court made these observations while dismissing a plea filed by the husband, who has been accused of clandestinely recording the video of intimate acts without the wife's knowledge and consent and, thereafter, uploading it on Facebook and then sharing the same with the wife's cousin.

He moved the HC challenging the chargesheet, quashing the order and entire criminal proceedings of the case under Section 67B of the Information Technology Act inter alia, arguing that being a legally wedded husband of the complainant, no offence is made out under Section 67B IT Act.

It was also argued that the FIR is anti-timed, that the victim's statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC shows substantial improvement, and that no material is on record that suggests the applicant made a video and uploaded it to the Internet.

On the other hand, challenging the husband's plea, the AGA argued that there are serious allegations against him and that even though the complainant is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, he has no right to make an obscene video of her and circulate it to the cousin of the complainant, through whom she has come to know about such an act of her husband.

At the outset, the HC noted that the arguments put forth by the husband could be raised at the time of trial and that the court can't examine them while dealing with a plea under Section 482 CrPC.

However, the Court extensively addressed the applicant's argument since he is the legally wedded husband of the complainant, so no offence under the IT Act would be made against him. The Court observed:

“Marriage does not grant a husband ownership or control over his wife, nor does it dilute her autonomy or right to privacy. By uploading an intimate video on Facebook, the applicant has gravely breached the sanctity of the marital relationship.”

The Single judge further observed that one of the most regressive principles that dominated matrimonial law in the Victorian era and earlier was the doctrine of coverture, which effectively subsumed a woman's legal identity under her husband upon marriage, however, it was a high time for the husband's to shed this mentality.

Emphasizing that the right to privacy is enshrined in the Indian constitution, including the right to bodily autonomy and the freedom to make personal choices, the Court also referred to the landmark case of Roe v. Wade in the United States, wherein the principle of a woman's control over her own body was upheld as a constitutional right.

In this regard, the Court also referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy and Another v. Union of India and Others, wherein privacy was recognised as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“Marital relationships are no exception to this principle. The wife's body is her own property, and her consent remains paramount in all aspects of her personal and intimate life. The husband's role is not that of a master or owner but of an equal partner, bound to respect her autonomy and individuality. Attempts to control or violate these rights—whether through coercion, abuse or the non-consensual sharing of intimate details—constitute gross breaches of trust and legality,” the Court further remarked.

In view of this, the Court dismissed the plea.