Case Analysis Of Marital Privacy

With the rapid development of economy and society, people’s privacy is increasingly faced with the threat of infringement by others, especially in such a special relationship as marriage, The individual’s privacy is more likely to be neglected or violated. The judiciaries are confused in dealing with the problem of marital privacy in many cases. The controversial points of this case lie in whether the defendant’s conduct meets the composition of the invasion of right to privacy and whether the behavior of collecting evidence of divorce can be used as a defense. Firstly, the existence of marital privacy is the fundamental problem of this case. The right to privacy is inalienable. Admitting the existence of right of privacy between couples meets the need of social development, and is an important guarantee for the family to play a positive role and safeguarding social stability, thus the fact that marital privacy should be protected by tort law can be identified. Secondly, the problem is whether the defendant’s conduct meets the composition of the invasion of right of privacy, especially the element of damage, on the basis of the recognition of marital privacy. As long as there is the existence of the state of privacy is being infringed, it means that the presence of the consequences of the damage. The mental anguish suffered by the victim, as well as the property of the expenditure for the restoration of damage will not affect the composition of the infringement of privacy, it will only affects the severity of the size and scope of damage, thus the existence of damage element can be identified, and the defendant’s conduct are in line with the composition of the invasion of right to privacy. Lastly, as for whether the behavior of collecting evidence of divorce can be used as a defense, The exercise of the right to know constitute a defense against marital right to know, but the right to know has to be exercised within the limits prescribed by law and in a legitimate way. Thus it can be concluded that the behavior of the defendant videotaping the plaintiffs private space to collect divorce proof can not constitute a valid defense.