Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.49 seconds)
Documents citing Deepinder Singh Mann vs Ranjit Kaur on 7 March, 2014

Vibhor Garg vs Neha on 14 July, 2025

Petition No. 949/2022 decided on 26.04.2022 by High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore Bench; Aasha Lata Soni vs. Durgesh Soni, 2023 SCC OnLine Chh 3959; Rayala M. Bhuvaneswari vs. Nagaphanender Rayala, AIR 2008 AP 98; Deepinder Singh Mann vs. Ranjit Kaur, 2014 SCC OnLine P&H 4826; Tripat Deep Singh vs. Paviter Kaur, 2018 (3) RCR (Civil) 71; Neha vs. State of Haryana, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 4469; Vishal Kaushik vs. Family Court, 2016(1) RLW 693 (Raj.); Dharmesh Sharma vs. Tanisha Sharma, 2024 SCC OnLine HP 5208; and Kethana Lokesh vs. Rahul R. Bettakote, Page 50 of 66 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 6368 decided on 19.06.2024 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, the High Courts declined to permit the conversation recorded by one of the spouses to corroborate the contention as being in violation of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, it is necessary to dilate upon the contours of the right to privacy in the context of Article 21 of the Constitution with reference to the recent dicta of this Court rendered by Constitution benches. 11.2 In K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) vs. Union of India reported in (2017) 10 SCC 1, (“Puttaswamy”), Chelameswar and Bobde JJ. enunciated that the constitutional right to privacy under Article 21 is limited to the relationship between the citizen and the State. Bobde J. (as he then was) drew a distinction between ‘common law rights’ and ‘fundamental rights’ by observing thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Neha vs Vibhor Garg on 12 November, 2021

The caution which has been sounded is indeed to be heeded. To permit a spouse to record conversations with an unsuspecting partner and to produce the same in a court of law, to be made the basis of deciding a petition under Section 13 of the Act, would indeed not be feasible. It is rightly observed in Deepinder Singh's case (Supra) that couples speak many things with each other, unaware that every word would be weighed in a Court of law. Moreover, the court would be ill-equipped to assess the circumstances in which a particular response may have been illicited from a spouse at a given point of time, notwithstanding the right of cross- examination.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 4 - L Gill - Full Document

R.Sankarram vs K.Kalaiselvi on 5 August, 2021

35. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Deepinder Singh Mann Vs. Ranjit Kaur reported in 2015 (5) RCR (Civil) 691 has observed that the computer age is a dangerous age, that the mobile phone or electronic gadgets should not be readily allowed to be used as an instrument of torture and oppression against a wife in a matrimonial action unless the court is satisfied that it might tilt the balance between justice and injustice in its cumulative judicial experience, wisdom and discretion in decision making and a married woman has a valuable right to her privacy of speech with her husband and couples speak many things with each other unwary that every word would be weighed one day and put under the judicial scanner. The following passage in the above ruling is also relevant:
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R.Sankarram vs K.Kalaiselvi on 5 August, 2021

35. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Deepinder Singh Mann Vs. Ranjit Kaur reported in 2015 (5) RCR (Civil) 691 has observed that the computer age is a dangerous age, that the mobile phone or electronic gadgets should not be readily allowed to be used as an instrument of torture and oppression against a wife in a matrimonial action unless the court is satisfied that it might tilt the balance between justice and injustice in its cumulative judicial experience, wisdom and discretion in decision making and a married woman has a valuable right to her privacy of speech with her husband and couples speak many things with each other unwary that every word would be weighed one day and put under the judicial scanner. The following passage in the above ruling is also relevant:
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Icici Bank Limited vs Souvik Ray on 25 October, 2024

(1) Kannamma v. P. Sagunthala, 2017 SCC Online Mad.34812 (2) Thiruvengadam Pillai v. Navaneethammal, (2208) 4 SCC 530 (3) Rameshwar Dass v. State of Punjab,(2007) 14 SCC 696 (4) Biraji v. Surya Pratap, (2020) 10 SCC 729 (5) Deepinder Singh Mann v. Ranjit Kaur, 2014 SCC Online P & H 4826 (6) Hiralal v. Board of Revenue 2014 (4) WLN 415(Raj.) (7) Lachman Singh v. Surendra Bahadur Singh, 1932 SCC Online All 88 (8) S.P.A Baskaran v. N. Sureshkumar MANU/TN/5565/2023 (9) K. Arjuna Rao v. Katuru Yeukondalu, 2017 SCC Online Hyd (H) ANALYSIS & DETERMINATION:-
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sheshnath Sharma vs Sunidhi Sharma on 5 May, 2025

Reliance may be placed upon the case of Deepinder Singh Man (supra) and also on the case of Vishal Kaushik Vs. Family Court and Another reported in 2015 (9) RCR Civil 831. It is not proved by the petitioner that the whatsapp chatting alleged to be between Sunidhi Sharma (respondent No.1) and Rahul Singh (respondent No.2) ar procured from her mobile phone within her knowledge rather it is the case that PW-3 has procured 13 FA No.12/2023 2025:JHHC:13490-DB the same after connected it with h computer. Moreover, this matter was sealed before Mahila P.S., Bokam and thereafter there is no allegations that she was having any talk wit Rahul Singh. So, only on the ground that the respondent No. I was having whatsapp charting with Rahul Singh, the case filed by the petitioner 13 1 (1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cannot be decreed.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document
1