Justice Evrol Mariette Peters ruled against the petitioner-wife, identified as RIN, noting that the trial would reveal personal and distressing details.
“Moreover, the identity of the co-respondent and alleged adulterer—often a source of public curiosity—was deliberately concealed to prevent the proceedings from becoming a platform for public shaming or moral judgement, which is not the role of the family court,” she said in a 21-page judgment.
Peters emphasised that the court’s role is to resolve legal disputes, not to serve as a stage for airing salacious details to the public.
According to court records, the couple had been married for approximately 25 years and have children who are now adults.
Last year, RIN filed for divorce alleging adultery between her husband, anonymised as MIN, and a co-respondent, VIN.
The husband then applied to have all parties anonymised, a move the wife opposed, citing public interest.
However, Peters said the wife should consider that naming and shaming the husband and VIN could ultimately be counterproductive.
“The desire for vindication in the court of public opinion may not yield the sympathy or moral clarity the petitioner expects,” she said.
Peters found no legitimate public interest in the case that would justify departing from the standard practice of anonymising parties in family law matters.
“It is important to distinguish clearly between public interest and the public’s interest,” she said. “Though similar in phrasing, they differ fundamentally in meaning and legal significance.”
She explained that public interest refers to matters that protect the welfare, safety, or fundamental rights of the general public, while the public’s interest refers to curiosity or a desire for sensational details, often driven by voyeurism or media sensationalism.
“This kind of interest, while perhaps widespread, is not sufficient grounds to override established privacy protections,” she added.
The wife’s counsel had argued that anonymity should not be granted as the public had a right to know of the husband’s alleged misconduct.
However, Peters said that although the husband was a senior public servant, he was appearing in court in his personal capacity.
“The law must treat all individuals equally in their private lives. Public status cannot be used either to shield one from legal scrutiny or to justify public exposure,” she said.
She added that the identities and privacy of the couple’s children also needed to be protected.
“In this case, deeply personal and distressing information involving the parties and the co-respondent will be revealed during the trial. This could potentially traumatise the children,” she said.
The wife has filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal.