<p>The High Court of Karnataka has ruled that a third party’s privacy cannot be permitted to be violated on the specious plea of the husband that he wants to prove illicit relationship between the alleged paramour and the wife.</p>.<p>Justice M Nagaprasanna said this in a recent judgement, allowing the petition filed questioning a family court order directing the telephone service provider to place the tower location details of the petitioner.</p>.<p>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.</p>.<p>The petitioner, a resident of Bengaluru city, argued that he is a third party to the proceedings and the order of the family court violates his right to privacy. On the other hand, the husband argued 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.</p>.<p>The court observed that the husband’s intention is only to prove alleged adultery and that he would not have filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights four years after the wife had filed the petition. 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.</p>.<p>“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. Informational privacy also forms an integral part of the 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.</p>
<p>The High Court of Karnataka has ruled that a third party’s privacy cannot be permitted to be violated on the specious plea of the husband that he wants to prove illicit relationship between the alleged paramour and the wife.</p>.<p>Justice M Nagaprasanna said this in a recent judgement, allowing the petition filed questioning a family court order directing the telephone service provider to place the tower location details of the petitioner.</p>.<p>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.</p>.<p>The petitioner, a resident of Bengaluru city, argued that he is a third party to the proceedings and the order of the family court violates his right to privacy. On the other hand, the husband argued 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.</p>.<p>The court observed that the husband’s intention is only to prove alleged adultery and that he would not have filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights four years after the wife had filed the petition. 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.</p>.<p>“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. Informational privacy also forms an integral part of the 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.</p>
