Man in adulterous relationship cannot hide behind right to privacy: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has recently made the observation while dismissing husband’s plea challenging two orders passed by the Family Court permitting his wife’s applications to seek preservation of CCTV footage of a hotel and other information where her husband was indulged in adultery with another woman.
Adultery a ground for divorce
In India, the law says that adultery is a valid ground for seeking divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Recently, the Delhi High Court decided the issue whether it will be in public interest for the court to come to the aid of a married man indulged in alleged sexual relationships outside the wedlock, on the premise of right to privacy?
Contentions of the parties
The wife had filed a divorce petition against her husband on the grounds of cruelty and adultery.
It was alleged by the wife before the Family Court that the husband and the other woman had stayed in a hotel. It was further alleged that the hotel details and call records were necessary to establish her contention.
The same was contested by the husband on the ground of right to privacy, that the said information cannot be sought claiming that it would curb his privacy. He further argued that if the records are sought and directions are complied with, then it would cast grave aspersions on the reputation and character of the woman with whom he met coincidentally at the hotel, but would also put a question mark on the legitimacy and paternity of the woman’s minor child.
The learned Family Court has passed directions seeking records pertaining to the husband and not his friend’s. The Family Court noted that there is no question of their right of privacy being violated in any manner.
The matter came before the High Court of Delhi and the following observations were made by the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court.
Observations of the High Court
It was observed by the High Court that it would not at all be in public interest that on the ground of right to privacy the Court denies the wife to attain the requisite information that is important to prove adultery of her husband. The Court cannot come to the aid of a married man who, during the subsistence of his marriage, is alleged to have indulged in sexual relationships outside his marriage.
A single judge Justice Rekha Palli stated in the order that “This right of privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has to be necessarily subject to reasonable restrictions especially when the restrictions are in the public interest.”
It was further stated by the Court that “The Hindu Marriage Act specifically recognises adultery as a ground for divorce and, therefore, it would not at all be in the public interest that the Court should on the ground of the right to privacy, come to the aid of a married man who, during the subsistence of his marriage, is alleged to have indulged in sexual relationships outside his marriage”.
Reference was taken by the High Court of the Supreme Court’s decision wherein the Apex Court held that though the right to privacy is a constitutionally protected right, however, it is not an absolute right and it is subject to necessary and reasonable restrictions, especially when the restrictions are in public interest.
The High Court of Delhi dismissed the husband’s plea challenging the order of the Family Court to preserve the documents pertaining reservation details, payment details and ID proofs given by him in a hotel. The High Court directed him to submit all of these documents in the Court in a sealed envelope.
It was stated by Justice Rekha Palli that when a wife seeks the help of the Court to procure the evidence that would go a long way to prove adultery of her husband, the court must step in. It further stated that “…this would be in consonance with Section 14 of the Family Courts Act which gives a leeway to the court to consider evidence which may be not admissible or relevant under the Indian Evidence Act”.
Section 14 of the Family Courts Act
The provision states that the Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, documents, information or any other matter which it thinks may assist the court to deal with a dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act.
It was observed by the High Court that direct evidence to prove adultery can rarely be available. The Court opined that the wife has made out a prima facie case against her husband and the information that is sought by her would definitely be relevant to prove the charge of adultery levelled against her husband. That the documents and information sought by the wife is relevant in nature to prove adultery against her husband and hence, denial of the same would weaken her case.
The High Court said that “Similarly, the call details will surely be indicative of the fact as to whether the conversations of the petitioner with the lady were of such duration and frequency as is not expected between colleagues. The respondent is seeking to prove the charge of adultery against the petitioner and therefore, it cannot be said that this information would not be relevant”.
It was observed by the Delhi High Court that solely based on the right to privacy that is not an absolute right on one hand, and on another hand, the wife’s prayer that is based on specific rights provisioned under the Hindu Marriage Act and the Family Courts Act. The Court needs to decide the prayer rationally.
Decision of the Court
The Delhi High Court, upheld the order of the Family Court and dismissed the husband’s appeal. The Judge said that the Court has no hesitation to hold that the wife’s right must prevail and therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders of the Family Court. There is no question of their right of privacy being violated in any manner.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us and Call us
Every article you write is just a unique experience.