Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 184
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J
MR VISHWAS SHETTY – Appellant
Versus
MRS. PREETHI K RAO – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.13165 OF 2019 (GM 3FC)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI MANMOHAN P.N.
For the Respondents: SRI N.GOWTHAM RAGHUNATH, SRI ARUN GOVINDRAJ
Right to privacy prohibits summoning personal information of a non-party based on allegations in marital proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 21, 226 and 227 - Right to privacy - Summoning tower location details of a third party without notice violates privacy rights - It was held that a third party's privacy cannot be invaded based on unproven allegation of illicit relationship. (Paras 11, 12)
(B) Family Law - Proceedings regarding annulment of marriage - Application allowing summoning of mobile tower records challenged on the ground of privacy - The petitioner successfully argues that he cannot be compelled to disclose personal information as a third party to the marriage conflict. (Paras 3, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, who is alleged to be the paramour of the respondent's wife, challenges an order summoning mobile tower details in a case concerning the annulment of the marriage between the respondents. The court allows the petitioner's challenge to the order on the grounds of privacy.
Findings of Court:
The court highlights that the right to informational privacy, implicit in Article 21, safeguards individuals from unwarranted disclosures, especially when not a party to the proceeding.
Issues: Whether summoning tower location details of the petitioner violates his right to privacy, considering he is not a party to the divorce proceedings initiated by the wife on the grounds of cruelty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that summoning details without consent or notice to the third party (the petitioner) contravenes the right to privacy, reinforcing that third-party privacy is protected regardless of allegations in marital disputes.
Result: The Writ Petition is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges mobile tower record summons. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments raised about privacy violations. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. the third-party's privacy should be protected. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. previous judgments discussed in context. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. order allowing summons quashed based on privacy rights. (Para 12 , 13) |
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question order dated 23-02-2019 passed by the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore on I.A.No.8 in M.C.No.556 of 2018 whereby the Court permits summoning of mobile tower record details of the mobile number of the petitioner.
2. Heard Sri P.N.Manmohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri N.Gowtham Raghunath, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Arun Govindraj, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Brief facts that lead the petitioner to this Court, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-
The 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent are wife and husband. After their marriage, the relationship turning sore, the wife files a petition before the Family Court in M.C.No.556 of 2018 seeking annulment of marriage with the 2nd respondent on account of cruelty. Merit of the claim of the wife or the defence of the 2nd respondent/husband is not the issue in the present lis. In the said proceedings, the husband files an application seeking call record details of the wife and her alleged paramour which the court allows by an order dated 24-11- 2018. That is challenged before this Court by the wife in Writ Petition No. 1338 of 2019. In the said petition it was the contention of the wife that none of the defense that the wife had let in qua the said interlocutory application is considered by the concerned Court. This Court, accepting the said contention, sets aside the order and directed the wife to prefer an application seeking review of the order passed allowing I.A.No.5 of 2018. It is then the application in I.A.No.8 was filed seeking review of the order dated 24.11.2018. Answering the said application for review, the concerned Court refused to allow the said application but grants summoning of tower location details only from the concerned authority i.e., the mobile operator. The tower location of the wife and the petitioner is sought to be produced before the concerned Court. The petitioner is the alleged paramour of the wife of the 2nd respondent as alleged by the husband. The said paramour is before this Court calling in question the said order on the ground that he is a third party to the proceedings. This Court, entertaining the petition, granted an interim order as prayed for, by its order dated 05-04-2019. The said interim order of stay is in operation as on date.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend with vehemence that he is a third party to the proceedings and his call record details or tower details which is one and the same, is directed to be produced by the Court through the Manager of Mobile operator. It violates his right to privacy, as not being a party to the proceedings his call record details cannot be sought to be summoned by the husband.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that the 2nd respondent is entitled to place his defence in the proceedings and, therefore, the Court has rightly summoned call record details of the petitioner as the wife has extra-marital relationship with the petitioner and would place reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of HIRACHAND SRINIVAS MANAGAONKAR v. SUNANDA 3(2001) 4 SCC 125 and the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of DEEPTI KAPUR v. KUNAL JULKA 3 2020 SCC OnLine Del 672. He would further contend that the wife has not even challenged the said order, the petitioner has no locus to challenge, if the wife has not challenged it. Therefore, the order is required to be confirmed and the details as sought for are to be summoned. It is his emphatic submission th
