The High Court of Delhi on August 29, 2025, dismissed four connected appeals arising out of an impugned order concerning adultery passed by the Family Court on 29.04.25. The appeal was to disregard the trial court order which demanded furnishing of CDRs and mobile tower records from R-1, who was allegedly involved in adultery with R-2, stating the breach of privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The impugned order also refused R-2 to be summoned as a witness and not a party/respondent.
The Appellant (Wife) sought divorce on grounds of adultery under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and requested CDRs and tower records to track R-1’s location, as both respondents had travelled together. She argued that these records were relevant to prove adultery and to assess alimony under Section 25 HMA, while also asking that the chats and call records be examined under confidentiality protocols to protect privacy.
To this, Respondent No. 1(Husband) argued that the demand for exact location, transaction history, and call records could not establish a case for adultery. He also stated that the demand for tower location data and CDRs, with no specific date or place of adultery mentioned in the petition, could not establish adulterous conduct. He maintained that his calls with were purely professional and their disclosure could harm his career. Respondent No. 2 (alleged adultery partner) contended to have her name removed from the case as a respondent and to be summoned as a witness instead, as the Wife’s petition could not effectively point out adulterous interaction between the respondents. She also claimed that her reputation was being exposed to public stigma and harassment without any substantive basis.
The Court held that the Family Court’s order to produce documents was reasonably limited and within the scope of Order XI Rule 14, avoiding any fishing inquiry.The Court observed that the Wife was justified in seeking specific information about the Husband, as it was necessary to support her divorce petition under Section 13(1) of the HMA. The Court therefore rejected the application of Respondent No. 2 while allowing the production of documents along with CDRs and tower location data, noting that it did not breach privacy under Article 21. An SHO was duly assigned to furnish call record data from January 2020 till date under Court premises only, and the Husband was directed to comply by submitting all the necessary records.Accordingly, the appeals and pending applications stood disposed of in the above terms.
Appearances:
For The Appellant – Adv. Prashant Ghai
For the Respondents- Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh for R-1, Adv.Prateek Chaudhary- for R-2.
