The court reaffirmed that compliance with court summons does not violate privacy rights and that challenges should be made in the originating court.

J U D G M E N T

1. The Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following prayers:

"1. Direct all banks to address summonses seeking litigant's financial data with due diligence, seeking clarification on ambiguity, honouring privacy, relevant laws & judicial precedents.

2. Direct all Registry staff of all courts in HC's territorial jurisdiction to strictly follow verification protocols and ensure that non-vakalath counsels do not "act or plead" in Court, honouring Order 3, Rule 4 CPC.

3. Direct the Respondent-bank, to pay compensation to the Petitioner, if this Hon'ble Court finds it just & reasonable, any amount at Court's discretion, for the aforementioned constitutional violations of privacy breach and resulting mental agony, resulting physical agony and professional damage.

4. Allow such other reliefs, prayed later, as the case progresses."

2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that, in the matrimonial case between the Petitioner and the wife, the wife obtained a summons from the Family Court to the Respondent Bank to provide the Petitioner's account details, and the Bank provided the account details which violated the Petitioner's right to privacy ensured by the Constitution and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. According to him, the details sought were for three years, but the Bank provided the Account Statement of 11 years to the Family Court.

3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Bank provided the details which are required by the Family Court in the Summons. If the Petitioner had any complaint regarding the issuance of the Summons, he should have agitated the matter before the Family Court itself. That apart, the Petitioner has filed a complaint before the Consumer Commission, Ernakulam, alleging deficiency in service and claiming compensation from the Bank. The learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent invited my attention to Ext.P3 in which it is stated that the details of the account of the Petitioner is sought for from 2015 onwards.

4. It is seen from the records as well as the averments in the Writ Petition that the Petitioner's grievance is regarding the furnishing of his account details by the Bank before the Family Court pursuant to the summons issued by the Family Court. In such case, it was for the Petitioner to approach either the Family Court or the Appellate Court challenging the issuance of the summons. When the Court summons details from the Bank, the Bank is bound to provide the same. The Bank cannot refuse to provide the account details on the ground that it would violate the right to privacy of the Petitioner. Even though the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent pointed out that a case is filed before the Consumer Commission, the same is not disclosed in the Writ Petition. Prayer No.3 relates to the claim of compensation which the Petitioner has already claimed before the Consumer Commission. This Court, sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , cannot consider the prayers of the Petitioner. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-