Read Time: 05 minutes
A wife is not an extension of her husband but an individual with her own rights, desires, and agency, said the court
The Allahabad High Court recently underscored that marriage does not confer a husband with ownership or control over his wife, nor does it dilute her right to privacy.
Dismissing a plea for quashing criminal proceedings, the court refused to interfere in a case where a man was accused of secretly recording and circulating an obscene video of his wife without her consent.
An FIR was filed against the applicant under Section 67 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act. The complainant, the applicant’s legally wedded wife, alleged that her husband clandestinely recorded an intimate act between them and uploaded it on Facebook before sharing it with her cousin and other villagers. The prosecution contended that the act constituted a grave violation of the wife’s bodily autonomy and privacy.
The husband’s counsel argued that no offence under Section 67 of the IT Act was made out, as the complainant was his legally wedded wife. He further claimed that there was no concrete evidence to support the allegations and that there were possibilities of compromise between the couple. However, the court rejected these arguments, stating that the sanctity of marriage does not grant a husband the right to violate his wife's privacy or dignity.
The bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar emphasized that a wife is not an extension of her husband but an individual with her own rights, desires, and agency.
The court observed that the accused's actions amounted to a serious breach of trust and confidentiality that forms the foundation of a marital relationship. “A husband is expected to honour the trust, faith, and confidence reposed in him by his wife, particularly in the context of their intimate relationship...This breach of trust undermines the very foundation of the marital relationship and is not protected by the marital bond,” the order stated.
Court also held that the trial court was the appropriate forum to determine factual aspects of the case. It noted that the material on record did not indicate that the proceedings were maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive. Consequently, the application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), seeking to quash the chargesheet and the summoning order, was dismissed
Case Title: xxx vs. yyy
Please Login or Register
