The Court observed that in matrimonial disputes concerning adultery, parties may obtain call detail records, tower location data, hotel reservations, and similar evidence, so long as the requests are specific, relevant, and proportionate to the dispute.
The Delhi High Court affirmed a Family Court order allowing a wife to access her husband’s call records, tower location data, and hotel bookings to support her adultery claim.
It emphasized that in cases alleging adultery, parties may seek precise and relevant evidence, and such requests, when narrowly defined, cannot be dismissed as mere “fishing inquiries.”
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed: “In matrimonial disputes where adultery is alleged, courts have consistently held that proof may often be circumstantial, and that evidence of association, stay at hotels, or patterns of communication may constitute relevant circumstances. CDRs and tower location data, if appropriately circumscribed to a defined period, serve as corroborative material to either establish or negate the charge of adulterous association.”
Background
The matter stemmed from a divorce petition filed by the wife under the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging her husband’s extramarital relationship. To establish her claim, she sought access to CDRs, tower location data, hotel bookings, bank statements, and other financial records.
During trial, she applied for disclosure of her husband’s credit card transactions, hotel stay details, and call data from January 2020 onwards.
The Family Court partly accepted her plea, permitting financial and travel records but rejecting demands for bulk WhatsApp chats, metadata, and social media information, terming them “fishing inquiries.”
Dissatisfied with the order, both parties moved the High Court, resulting in the present ruling.
Court’s Observations
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court addressed each issue raised, examining the wife’s requests for discovery and the husband’s objections in detail.
On CDRs and tower location data, the Court noted that direct proof of adultery is uncommon, and circumstantial material like call records and location data can serve as corroboration. It further clarified that requests confined to specific periods and individuals are not “fishing” in nature but directly relevant to the dispute. Consequently, production of CDRs and location records was permitted, subject to safeguards such as filing in sealed cover.
Regarding hotel stay records, the Court held that if a spouse alleges the other stayed at a particular hotel with the alleged partner, seeking booking details for that hotel and timeframe is justified. Such specific requests, it noted, cannot be dismissed as “fishing” since they directly address the adultery charge. Accordingly, the Family Court’s order directing production of hotel records was upheld.
As for financial documents, the Bench observed that records like bank statements, ESOPs, and credit card transactions may be relevant when tied to allegations of spending, travel, or gifts for the alleged paramour. Given that the wife’s application identified precise accounts and time periods, the Court found the request proportionate and sustained the Family Court’s direction for disclosure.
The Court, however, declined the wife’s plea for metadata, WhatsApp chats, and unrelated social media details, holding that such demands lacked support in the pleadings and amounted to speculative fishing. It reiterated that discovery in matrimonial disputes must remain confined to specific allegations and cannot serve as a tool for indiscriminate invasion of privacy.
Addressing the husband’s concerns, the Bench noted that while privacy is a right under Article 21, it is not absolute. Where narrowly tailored and time-bound requests directly support an adultery allegation, the right to a fair trial may justifiably override privacy, subject to confidentiality safeguards.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the Family Court’s order permitting the wife to access evidence relevant to her adultery allegations.
It directed the SHO to produce CDRs and tower location data from January 2020 in sealed cover, required the husband to disclose his financial records including bank and credit card statements, and instructed hotels to provide booking details for the specified periods.
At the same time, the Court refused requests for unrelated material like bulk social media data, terming them speculative.
The appeals and pending applications were accordingly disposed of in line with these directions.