 "CCPA, Central Consumer Protection Authority, ORDER, JUSTICE, COURT ORDER")
A husband has no legal right to demand access to his wife's personal information, including her phone and bank passwords, the Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled, according to a report by LiveLaw.
The observation was made by Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey while hearing a plea filed by a man whose request for his wife’s call detail records (CDRs) was rejected by the Family Court. The petitioner had moved the High Court challenging that order, the report added.
The bench stated that any such compulsion by a husband amounts to a breach of the wife’s right to privacy and would invite action under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
“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 Court said, as reported by LiveLaw.
Also Read
 "Bombay High Court")
 "marriage, wedding")
 "gavel law cases")
 "Couples to singles, brands are catering to every heart on Valentine's Day")
 "Donald Trump, US President Trump")
Background
The man filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, citing cruelty. His wife denied the allegations. During proceedings, he filed applications with the Senior Superintendent of Police (Durg) and the Family Court, seeking her CDRs on suspicion of an affair. The Family Court dismissed the plea, stating that the information was not relevant to the case, LiveLaw reported.
The High Court upheld that order, noting that the husband had not filed for divorce on grounds of adultery, nor had he established the relevance of the call records. The claim regarding a relationship between the wife and her brother-in-law was raised for the first time in the CDR application.
Citing previous judgments, the Court said that privacy within marriage is protected 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,” Justice Pandey said, as quoted by LiveLaw.
He also observed that while spouses share a life, they do not surrender their individual autonomy or personal boundaries.
 "Stray dogs")
 "Delhi High Court")
 "Ashwini Vaishnaw")
 "Bomb Threat, Delhi Police")
 "Traffic, Traffic jam, New Delhi Traffic Jam")
