Husband forcing wife to share phone, bank passwords is domestic violence, violates privacy: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently held that a husband cannot force his wife to share her mobile phone or bank account passwords and doing so would amount to violation of her privacy and could be considered an act of domestic violence.

While marital relationships involve shared lives, it does not negate individual privacy rights, Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey underlined.

"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. There should be a balance between marital privacy and the need for transparency and at the same time trust in the relationship," the Court made it clear.

In the present case, the petitioner-husband filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, citing cruelty as the ground. In response, the wife submitted a written statement denying the allegations.

During the proceedings, the husband requested the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) of Durg to give call detail records (CDR) of his wife, alleging doubts about her character.

He also filed a similar application before the family court seeking directions for the authorities to provide her call records.

However, his plea was rejected prompting him to move the High Court.

The High Court upheld this rejection, emphasising that vague suspicions cannot justify the violation of an individual's right to privacy.

The High Court cited the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in KS Puttaswamy, People’s Union for Civil Liberties and Mr X v Hospital Z to reaffirm that right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

"As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the right to privacy includes the preservation of personal intimacies, the sanctity of marriage and sexual orientation, therefore, the learned Family Court rightly rejected the application moved by the petitioner. 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," the Court noted.

With these observations, the Court denied the petitioner's request for call detail records of his wife.

Advocate Aman Tamrakar appeared for the petitioner.