75 August 31 2025

DELHI HIGH COURT PERMITS CALL DATA AND LOCATION TRACKING TO PROBE ADULTERY CLAIMS IN DIVORCE: 2025

The judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court on August 29, 2025, addresses a batch of matrimonial appeals arising from interlocutory orders of the Family Court. This article summarizes and analyzes the decision, anonymizing all party details and focusing on the core legal and factual aspects presented.

Fact of Case
The matter involves four connected appeals arising from matrimonial proceedings under Section 13(1)(i) and (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, relating to alleged adultery and cruelty within a Hindu marriage solemnized in 2002 in New Delhi. During the proceedings, the petitioner-wife alleged that her husband maintained an illicit relationship with another woman (hereafter “R-2”), implicating repeated travel and stays at various hotels and guest houses. The parties also have two children residing with the wife. Multiple interlocutory applications led to the impugned Family Court order on April 29, 2025, which is at the heart of these appeals .

Issue Before the Court

The High Court was asked to decide on several critical interim issues:

	•	Whether R-2, the alleged paramour, was rightly impleaded as a party.

	•	Whether disclosure of call detail records (CDRs) and tower location data of R-2 and the husband was justified.

	•	Whether the Family Court’s refusal to allow discovery of specific documents was sustainable.

	•	Whether partial disclosure of the husband’s financial documents was correct .

 Contentions from Petitioner 
The petitioner, primarily the wife, asserted that:

	•	Adultery is clandestine and seldom proved by direct evidence; hence, circumstantial records (such as coordinated travel, hotel stays, and electronic communications) assume legal significance.

	•	Her application provided specific details, including names of hotels, travel dates, and communication records – sufficient to meet legal requirements.

	•	The requested financial documents were not only essential for substantiating adultery but also for determining alimony.

	•	Judicial precedents support admission of circumstantial evidence and call detail records in adultery cases.

	•	Privacy concerns can be balanced with confidential protocols for evidence submission .

 Contentions from Respondent 

The respondents, specifically the husband and R-2, raised several defenses:

	•	R-2 argued that her impleadment was based on vague allegations without any specific instance of sexual intercourse, thus exposing her to public stigma without cause.

	•	Disclosure of tower location and CDRs was said to be a violation of R-2’s right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.

	•	The husband contended that his professional communication with R-2 was necessitated by work obligations, not personal relationship.

	•	Both respondents argued that directions to produce extensive financial and communication records amounted to a fishing expedition lacking foundation in the pleadings.

	•	Several of the documents requested were not in their possession or not relevant to the stage of proceedings .

 Court Observation with Law Discussion 

The Court conducted a detailed legal analysis, referencing statutory and judicial principles:

	•	Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC provides for striking out or adding parties necessary for adjudication. In cases of alleged adultery under Section 13(1)(i) HMA, impleadment of alleged paramour is not just procedural but mandated by principles of natural justice.

	•	Section 14 of the Family Courts Act enables relaxed rules of evidence to ascertain the truth in matrimonial matters.

	•	The right to privacy, as recognized in K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, must be balanced against the right to a fair trial; proportional disclosure is permitted where justified by pleadings.

	•	Court upheld that CDRs and location data, if appropriately limited, form relevant and corroborative circumstantial evidence in adultery cases.

	•	For document production, the Court emphasized that discovery should not be denied if pleaded specifically and related to the case, subject to safeguards preventing misuse and ensuring confidentiality .

 Final Judgment 
The appeals were disposed of with the following directions:

	•	The alleged paramour (R-2) was rightfully impleaded, and her application for deletion as a party was rejected.

	•	The direction for production of CDRs and tower location data for the period from January 2020 onward was upheld, subject to presentation in sealed cover and confidentiality.

	•	The Family Court’s refusal to allow certain discovery requests was partly set aside; hotel booking records and related travel documents were directed to be produced, excluding requests that were speculative or unrelated.

	•	Partial disclosure of financial documents by the husband was found justified; only documents directly relevant to the proceedings were allowed, while unrelated items were appropriately denied.

	•	Inspection of produced documents should be supervised within the court premises to prevent unauthorized disclosure .

 Mentioned Relevant Case Laws 

The judgment referenced the following key legal precedents:

	•	Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1: Recognizing right to privacy under Article 21.

	•	Rajesh Devi v. Jai Prakash (2019 SCC OnLine P&H 6239): Mandating impleadment of alleged adulterer in divorce cases.

	•	Padmavathi v. Sai Babu (2012 SCC OnLine AP 1281): Requiring the presence of alleged paramour for effective adjudication.

	•	Linda Constance Edwards v. William Edwards & Anr. (2000 SCC OnLine Del 933): Accepting circumstantial evidence for proving adultery.

	•	Aparna Choudhrie Kala & Anr. vs Vaibhav Kala (2024 SCC OnLine Del 876): Allowing CDRs and location records in matrimonial disputes.

	•	Sachin Arora v. Manju Arora (2023 SCC OnLine Del 2692): Privacy concerns in the context of requests for evidence, with right to fair trial prioritized.

	•	K. Srinivasa Rao v. Nalam Naga Kamala Rani & Anr.: Allowing production of hotel records as evidence of adultery.

	•	Sharda v. Dharmpal (2003) 4 SCC 493: Permitting limited incursions into privacy for truth-testing in matrimonial cases .

 Conclusion 
This judgment demonstrates the balance the court must strike between privacy rights and the necessities of effective matrimonial adjudication, particularly when circumstantial evidence is vital to the outcome. All directions are subject to procedural safeguards to protect the dignity and confidentiality of the parties involved.

DATE OF DECISION:29.08.2025
CASE NO:MAT.APP.(F.C.) 251/2025

Authored By Advocate Alok Kumar, an experienced practising lawyer in Delhi NCR.

Author

avatar
Adv. ALOK KUMAR
Advocate Serving Delhi NCR
Delhi High Court & District Courts
LL.B.▪︎Faculty of Law▪︎Delhi University


Comments are not allowed on this article.