Mobile tower details of man cant be shared on husband's bid to prove illicit relationship with wife: Ktka HC [Read Order]

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that privacy of a third party cannot be allowed to be violated on the specious plea of the husband that he wanted to prove illicit relationship between the alleged paramour and the wife.

Justice M Nagaprasanna quashed an order to produce mobile tower details of a man alleged to be in relationship with the wife, saying a citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage and other incidental relationships.

The court allowed the petition by a man (name withheld) who questioned a family court's order of February 23, 2019 directing the telephone service provider to place location details of the petitioner.

"Informational privacy also forms an integral part of right to privacy. Therefore, the order which directs tower details of the petitioner to be placed before the Court in a proceeding, which he is not even a party, undoubtedly violates informational privacy," the bench said.

The proceeding before the family court was initiated by the wife seeking annulment of marriage on account of cruelty. The family court had allowed the application filed by the husband seeking tower location details of the wife and her alleged paramour (petitioner). On a review application filed by the wife, the family court confirmed the order in February 2019.

In his plea, the petitioner, a resident of Bengaluru city, argued that he is a third party to the proceedings and the order of the family court violated his right to privacy.

The husband, for his part, contended that the details were absolutely necessary to demonstrate an illicit relationship between his wife and the petitioner, which according to him was coming in the way of a happy marriage. He also said the future of a child, born from the wedlock, is in jeopardy due to the act of the wife in having relationship with the petitioner.

The court, however, noted that the husbands intention is only to prove alleged adultery. Otherwise, he would not have filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights four years after the wife had filed the petition, it pointed out.

The court also said that the wife not challenging the order of the family court would have no bearing on the right of the petitioner, as he is a third party.

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. A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage and other incidental relationships, the bench said.

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, the bench added.

 [Read Order]