Violation Of Inherent Confidentiality That Defines Bond: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash Case Against Man For Uploading Wife’s Obscene Video
The Allahabad High Court was considering an application filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the proceedings registered against a man under Section 67 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act.
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash a case registered against a man for uploading an intimate video of his wife on Facebook while observing that he had gravely breached the sanctity of the marital relationship.
The High Court was considering an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet along with cognizance order as well as the entire proceedings in a case registered under Section 67 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act.
The Single Bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar held, “...it's prima facie observed that the marriage does not grant a husband ownership or control over his wife, nor does it dilute her autonomy or right to privacy. By uploading an intimate video on Facebook, the applicant has gravely breached the sanctity of the marital relationship.”
Advocate Pramod Kumar Mishra represented the Appellant while the Government Advocate represented the Opposite Party.
Arguments
The Applicant’s Counsel brought it to the Court’s attention that the Applicant is the legally wedded husband of the complainant and, therefore, no offence under Section 67 of the I.T. Act was made out. It was also submitted that there is no material on record which could suggest that the applicant made an obscene video of his wife and uploaded it on the internet.
On the contrary, it was the case of the Respondent that serious allegations were made against the applicant that the applicant-husband had clandestinely, without the complainant's knowledge and consent, made an obscene video of an intimate act performed between husband and wife from his mobile. It was submitted that the applicant first uploaded the same on Facebook and thereafter shared it with her cousin and other villagers.
Reasoning
Highlighting the fact that 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, the Bench stated, “The act of sharing such content amounts to a violation of the inherent confidentiality that defines the bond between husband and wife. This breach of trust undermines the very foundation of the marital relationship and is not protected by the marital bond.”
“A wife is not an extension of her husband but an individual with her own rights, desires, and agency. Respecting her bodily autonomy and privacy is not just a legal obligation but a moral imperative in fostering a truly equal relationship”, it further added.
It was also explained by the Bench that the adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court also did not find that the impugned criminal proceedings were manifestly attended with mala fide or maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive. Moreover, no illegality, perversity or substantial error was pointed out in the impugned summoning order to warrant any interference by the High Court.
Thus, finding no merit in the Petition, the Bench dismissed the same.
Cause Title: X v. State of U.P. and Another (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:28182)
Appearance:
Applicant: Advocates Pramod Kumar Mishra, Suneel Kumar Mishra
Opposite Party: Government Advocate
