Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The learned Subordinate Judge decreed the plaintiff's suit and ordered the closure of the doors and the demolition of the balcony within six weeks of the date of the decree and also a perpetual injunction. On appeal the learned District Judge affirmed the decree of the Court of first instance. The defendant now comes to this Court in second appeal. The matter is no longer open to any controversy and has indeed been settled by a long course of judicial pronouncements that a customary right of privacy within certain limitations exists in the North-Western Provinces, and a material interference with such a right is an actionable wrong and affords a good cause of action to the person or persons affected thereby. In this respect the rule enunciated above departs from the well-recognized rule of English law which renders invasion of privacy unactionable. In view of the social conditions of this country which prescribe seclusion for females belonging to certain respectable class of the Hindu and Mahomedan communities in answer to communal sentiment and as the practical result of the custom which has descended from olden times, the right of privacy has taken too deep a root to be dislodged by any a priori reasoning.