The Court noted that in adultery-related matrimonial disputes, parties are entitled to seek call detail records, tower location data, hotel bookings, and similar material, provided the requests are precise, relevant, and proportionate to the issues involved.
The Delhi High Court upheld a Family Court’s directive permitting the wife to obtain her husband’s call records, location data, and hotel booking details in support of her adultery allegations.
The Court stressed that in such matters, parties are entitled to seek specific and relevant evidence, and narrowly tailored requests cannot be brushed aside as “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 case arose from a divorce petition instituted by the wife under the Hindu Marriage Act, wherein she accused her husband of engaging in an extramarital relationship. To substantiate her allegations, she sought production of call detail records, tower location data, hotel booking records, bank statements, and other financial documents.
During trial, she further applied for disclosure of her husband’s credit card transactions, hotel stay information, and call records from January 2020 onwards.
The Family Court partly allowed her application, granting access to financial and travel documents but declining requests for bulk WhatsApp conversations, metadata, and social media content, holding them to be “fishing inquiries.”
Aggrieved by the order, both parties approached the High Court, leading to the present decision.
Court’s Observations
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court examined each contention in detail, addressing the wife’s applications for discovery alongside the husband’s objections.
With respect to call detail records and tower location data, the Court observed that direct evidence of adultery is rarely available, and that circumstantial material such as call records and location details may provide corroborative support. It clarified that narrowly framed requests, limited to specific time periods and individuals, cannot be dismissed as “fishing inquiries” but are instead directly relevant to the controversy. Accordingly, the Court allowed production of CDRs and location data, subject to safeguards, including filing them in a sealed cover.
On the issue of hotel stay records, the Court held that where a spouse alleges the other’s presence at a specific hotel with the alleged partner, a request for booking details limited to that hotel and timeframe is legitimate. Such targeted discovery, it observed, cannot be treated as a “fishing inquiry” as it bears directly on the charge of adultery. The Family Court’s direction for production of hotel records was therefore affirmed.
With respect to financial documents, the Bench observed that materials such as bank statements, ESOPs, and credit card transactions may assume relevance when linked to allegations of expenditure, travel, or gifts for the alleged paramour. Since the wife’s application identified specific accounts and time periods, the Court considered the request proportionate and upheld the Family Court’s order for disclosure.
The Court, however, rejected the wife’s request for metadata, WhatsApp conversations, and unrelated social media records, holding that such demands were unsupported by the pleadings and amounted to speculative fishing. It reaffirmed that discovery in matrimonial proceedings must be limited to specific allegations and cannot be used as an instrument for indiscriminate intrusion into privacy.
In response to the husband’s objections, the Bench observed that although privacy is a constitutionally protected right under Article 21, it is not absolute. Where requests are narrowly framed, limited in duration, and directly relevant to an adultery allegation, the right to a fair trial may legitimately prevail, provided confidentiality safeguards are maintained.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the Family Court’s order granting the wife access to evidence relevant to her adultery allegations.
It directed the SHO to furnish call detail records and tower location data from January 2020 in sealed cover, required the husband to disclose his financial documents including bank and credit card statements, and instructed hotels to produce booking records for the specified periods.
At the same time, the Court declined requests for unrelated material such as bulk social media data, terming them speculative. The appeals and all pending applications were accordingly disposed of in terms of these directions.
