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 affirmed a Family Court’s order allowing the wife to access her husband’s call detail records, location data, and hotel booking information to substantiate her adultery allegations.
The Court emphasized that in such cases, parties have the right to request precise and relevant evidence, and narrowly framed demands 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, in which she alleged that her husband was involved in an extramarital relationship. To support her claims, she requested the production of call detail records, tower location data, hotel booking information, bank statements, and other financial documents.
During the proceedings, she also sought disclosure of her husband’s credit card transactions, hotel stay records, and call details from January 2020 onwards.
The Family Court partly accepted her application, permitting access to financial and travel records but rejecting demands for bulk WhatsApp chats, metadata, and social media content, terming them “fishing inquiries.”
Dissatisfied with the order, both sides appealed before the High Court, resulting in the present ruling.
Court’s Observations
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court carefully examined the wife’s discovery applications along with the husband’s objections.
On call detail records and tower location data, the Court noted that direct proof of adultery is seldom available, and circumstantial evidence such as call logs and location details may serve as corroboration. It clarified that narrowly tailored requests, confined to specific periods and individuals, cannot be dismissed as “fishing inquiries” but are directly relevant to the case. Production of CDRs and location data was therefore permitted, subject to safeguards, including submission in a sealed cover.
On hotel stay records, the Court held that when a spouse alleges the other’s presence at a particular hotel with the alleged partner, seeking booking details restricted to that hotel and timeframe is a legitimate request. Such targeted discovery, it observed, directly relates to the allegation of adultery and cannot be treated as speculative. The Family Court’s direction to produce hotel records was accordingly upheld.
On financial documents, the Bench observed that records such as bank statements, ESOPs, and credit card transactions may become relevant when tied to claims of expenditure, travel, or gifts for the alleged paramour. Since the wife had specified particular accounts and timeframes, the Court found the request proportionate and sustained the Family Court’s disclosure order.
However, the Court declined the wife’s demand for metadata, WhatsApp conversations, and unrelated social media records, finding them unsupported by pleadings and amounting to speculative fishing. It reiterated that discovery in matrimonial disputes must be limited to specific allegations and cannot extend to indiscriminate intrusions into privacy.
Addressing the husband’s privacy objections, the Bench acknowledged that privacy is a constitutionally protected right under Article 21 but emphasized that it is not absolute. Where requests are precise, time-bound, and directly connected to adultery allegations, the right to a fair trial may justifiably prevail, provided confidentiality safeguards are observed.
Conclusion
The High Court rejected the appeals and upheld the Family Court’s order permitting the wife to obtain evidence relevant to her adultery claims.
It directed the SHO to provide call detail records and tower location data from January 2020 in a sealed cover, required the husband to submit his financial records including bank and credit card statements, and instructed hotels to supply booking details for the specified periods.
At the same time, the Court refused to allow requests for unrelated material such as bulk social media data, holding them to be speculative. The appeals and all pending applications were accordingly disposed of in line with these directions.