In a significant judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court has firmly stated that a husband does not have the right to force his wife to reveal her mobile phone or bank account passwords. The Court emphasized that marriage does not automatically grant access to a spouse's private information, and any such demand infringes upon the wife's constitutional right to privacy.
The matter was heard by Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey, who made it clear that a woman’s right to personal privacy stands even within the bounds of marriage.
“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,”
– Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Read also:- Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association Demands Cancellation of FIR Against Advocate
He further stressed that trust, privacy, and transparency must co-exist in a marital relationship. According to him, forcing a spouse to disclose personal and confidential details breaks this balance.
The case involved a divorce petition filed by the husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, claiming cruelty as the ground for separation. The wife denied all the allegations in her written statement.
During the divorce proceedings, the husband filed a plea before the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Durg, asking for the Call Detail Records (CDR) of his wife, citing doubts about her character. A similar request was made in the Family Court, demanding that the authorities produce her phone call data. However, this plea was rejected by the Family Court. Challenging this decision, the husband approached the High Court.
Read also:- Drug Case Controversy: Delhi HC Questions NCB’s Objection to Sharing IO’s Mobile Data
The High Court began by noting that the divorce petition was not based on adultery but on cruelty. The accusation of an illicit affair was made for the first time only when the petitioner sought the call records, and there was no mention of how these records were relevant to the cruelty claim.
Referring to several landmark judgments, including Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017), PUCL v. Union of India (1996), and Mr. X v. Hospital Z (1998), the Court observed that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. It includes protection of personal communications, marital sanctity, and individual autonomy.
“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,”
– Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
The Court further held that spouses, despite living together and sharing a life, do not lose their individual right to privacy. Neither partner has the authority to invade the personal space, autonomy, or communications of the other without valid legal grounds.
In light of these observations, the High Court upheld the Family Court’s decision and dismissed the petition. It held that allowing such a request would be an unlawful intrusion into the wife’s private life and would set a wrong precedent regarding marital rights and privacy.
“There should be a balance between marital privacy and the need for transparency and at the same time trust in the relationship.”
– Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
The husband in this case was represented by Advocate Aman Tamrakar, while the wife did not appear in the proceedings.