In a bizarre incident, a man in Tripura has allegedly installed CCTV cameras in every room including in the bed room in his house to monitor the movement of his wife in the house.
The incident came to light after the woman approached the Tripura Commission for Women here in the last week seeking action against her husband.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
The women rights panel has taken up the case and termed the complaint of domestic abuse ‘serious in nature’.
“Whatever be the reason, installation of CCTV cameras in multiple locations – even in the bedroom of a woman – is rare and serious in nature. How can a woman live under constant surveillance in her most private quarters?” TOI quoted Barnali Goswami, chairperson of the panel, as saying.
She said that while installing CCTV cameras is legal in a private space, it is a criminal offence under Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code if these cameras are used for voyeuristic purposes.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
The panel has given 45 days time to the couple to try and “resolve” the issue.
The man has been asked to pay Rs 3,000 to his wife every month until a settlement is made.
The woman had lodged the complaint with the panel last week, alleging that her husband had demanded dowry soon after their marriage three years ago and that he and her in-laws would torture her.
Eventually, she added, she sold off some ancestral land to come up with Rs 2 lakh. However, in September last year, he installed five CCTV cameras across their four-room house.
“There were cameras everywhere – the main entrance, the corridor, my mother-in-law’s room and our bedroom. The monitor is placed in my mother in-law’s room. It is a serious infringement of personal life and liberty … Having a camera record everything all day is humiliating,” the woman told the panel.
The man, denying the charges, said his wife had accused him of having an affair with another woman and he had installed the cameras “in self-defence” because he was “afraid of her atrocities” and wanted to have “proof of innocence”.