Express News Service
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has agreed to examine whether seeking details of hotel stays and call records to prove allegations of adultery amounts to a violation of privacy. A bench of justices Krishna Murari and Sanjay Kumar agreed to examine the same while considering a plea challenging Delhi High Court’s May 10 order. The HC had allowed a plea filed by a wife to obtain and preserve details of her husband’s calls and hotel stay.
The husband’s plea in the apex court stated that though adultery is not a public wrong, the High Court in the impugned judgment upheld the decision of the family court in order to conduct a roving and fishing inquiry into the husband’s life.
The High Court had set a “regressive and draconian” precedent turning the clock behind and taking society back to the era prior to Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017). The matter concerned is civil in nature and the allegations are that of private wrong the impugned order is endangering not only the reputation and other incidental relationships of the petitioner but also allowing questions to be raised over the character and chastity of his friend,” the plea stated.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has agreed to examine whether seeking details of hotel stays and call records to prove allegations of adultery amounts to a violation of privacy. A bench of justices Krishna Murari and Sanjay Kumar agreed to examine the same while considering a plea challenging Delhi High Court’s May 10 order. The HC had allowed a plea filed by a wife to obtain and preserve details of her husband’s calls and hotel stay.
The husband’s plea in the apex court stated that though adultery is not a public wrong, the High Court in the impugned judgment upheld the decision of the family court in order to conduct a roving and fishing inquiry into the husband’s life.
The High Court had set a “regressive and draconian” precedent turning the clock behind and taking society back to the era prior to Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017). The matter concerned is civil in nature and the allegations are that of private wrong the impugned order is endangering not only the reputation and other incidental relationships of the petitioner but also allowing questions to be raised over the character and chastity of his friend,” the plea stated. googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });
