Husband Cannot Seek Mobile Tower Location Of Wife's Alleged Lover To Prove Adultery As It Violates Privacy : Karnataka High Court

Justice M Nagaprasanna said a citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his family, marriage and other incidental relationships. Informational privacy also forms an integral part of the right to privacy, said the court. 

"Third party's privacy cannot be permitted to be violated on the specious plea of the husband that he wants to prove illicit relationship between the petitioner and the wife. It is trite that the right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of the Country under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is a right to be 'let alone'."

The court made the observations while allowing a man's petition seeking quashing of an order passed by a family court on February 23, 2019, calling for his tower location details for adjudication of a matrimonial case. 

In the matrimonial case, the wife is seeking annulment of marriage, on grounds of cruelty. The husband in the said proceedings had an application seeking call detail record of the wife and her alleged paramour. His allegation is that his wife has "illicit" relationship with the man - the petitioner before high court.

Allowing the application, the family court had observed that the husband was not seeking "summoning of conversation through calls, SMS chats" but only tower location details for adjudication of the case in accordance with law. 

Findings

Observing that the intention of the husband is only to prove alleged adultery on the part of his wife, the court said the tower details of the third party cannot be permitted to be divulged for such reason.

"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."

Rejecting the contention of the husband that wife has not challenged the order of the family court, the bench said her "acceptance" of the order would have no bearing on the right of the petitioner to seek quashment of the said order.

"Wife, who is anyway a party to the proceedings, has instituted divorce case, her acceptance or otherwise, cannot bind the petitioner. There is no warrant to permit tower details of the petitioner to be summoned or brought before the concerned Court to aid the plea of the husband who has not even filed any case."

Case Title: VS v. PKR & ANR.

Case No: WP 13165/2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (kar) 515

Date of Order: 30-11-2022.

Appearance: Advocate Manmohan P N for petitioner.

Advocate N Gowtham Raghunath for R1.

Advocate Arun Govindraj for R2.