Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
LALITHA KANNEGANTI
Vinay Manjunath S/o M.S. Manjunath – Appellant
Versus
Yagnika Chaitanya Cotha W/o Chaitanya V. Cotha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initiation of matrimonial case on grounds of cruelty. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. consideration of evidence required for adjudication. (Para 4 , 5 , 7 , 14) |
| 3. arguments regarding privacy and third-party involvement. (Para 6 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. balancing privacy and necessity of evidence for judicial proceedings. (Para 13) |
| 5. order issued regarding evidence submission. (Para 15) |
ORDER :
1. Aggrieved by the Order passed on IA No.6 in M.C. No.6606/2025 dated 31.10.2025 by the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, the third party is before this Court.6
2. Respondent No.1 has filed M.C.No.6606/2025 seeking divorce against respondent No.2, the husband, on the ground of cruelty. It is alleged by respondent No.1 that respondent No.2 is living in an adulterous relationship with the respondent No.3 herein.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is the third party before this Court, is only a friend of the respondents.
4. It is submitted that respondent No.1, who is the petitioner in M.C. No.6606/2025, has filed I.A. No.6 seeking the following reliefs:
5. On considering the said application filed by the wife, the Court passed the or
Privacy concerns must be balanced with the necessity of relevant evidence in matrimonial disputes, particularly in cases of alleged adultery.
The right to privacy in matrimonial disputes is not absolute and must balance with the right to fair trial, allowing relevant evidence to be admitted even if obtained through means that raise questio....
The court clarified that while the husband bears the burden of proof regarding cruelty, the wife also has an onus to provide evidence when required.
Court affirmed the necessity of impleading an alleged paramour in divorce proceedings for fair adjudication, emphasizing evidentiary disclosures must balance privacy rights with the right to prove ad....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to devise its own procedure for disposal of an application under Section 28(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Viole....
The denial of information under the RTI Act, 2005, invoking Section 8(1)(j) was justified as the information sought was deemed to cause unwarranted invasion of privacy and did not serve a larger publ....
The RTI Act cannot be invoked to disclose private information that lacks public interest or is accessible through other legal avenues, particularly in sensitive personal matters.
The court upheld the right to privacy in sensitive family law matters, allowing trials to be conducted 'in camera' when necessary.
Right to privacy encompasses marital confidentiality, preventing access to spouse's private communications without valid justification or specific claims.
Right to privacy – Section 122 of Evidence Act does not touch upon aspect of right to privacy as envisaged under Article 21 of Constitution – Section 122 of Evidence Act recognises right to a fair tr....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
