The Delhi High Court has delivered a significant ruling on the use of electronic evidence in matrimonial cases, holding that a court can order the production of a spouse’s mobile phone Call Detail Records (CDRs) and tower location data to help ascertain allegations of adultery. A Division Bench of Justice Anil Khetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that such a direction is not a “fishing and roving inquiry” but a legitimate tool for gathering corroborative circumstantial evidence.
The Court, while balancing the fundamental right to privacy against the right to a fair trial, also affirmed that an alleged paramour is a necessary party to divorce proceedings based on adultery and expanded the scope of discovery to include specific hotel booking records.
Background of the Case
The judgment was passed in a batch of appeals concerning a divorce petition filed by a wife against her husband on grounds of adultery and cruelty. The wife had impleaded another woman as a co-respondent, alleging she was in an adulterous relationship with the husband.
A Family Court had earlier dismissed the co-respondent’s plea to be removed from the case, allowed the wife’s request for the husband’s CDRs and tower location data for both him and the co-respondent, and partially allowed the discovery of financial documents. However, it had rejected the wife’s plea for hotel booking details and other records. This order was challenged by all three parties before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The co-respondent (the alleged paramour) and the husband argued that directing the disclosure of tower location data was a grave violation of their right to privacy, as guaranteed by the Supreme Court in the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy case. They contended that without specific pleadings of adultery, such a request amounted to an impermissible intrusion into their private lives.
The wife argued that adultery is inherently secretive and difficult to prove with direct evidence. She maintained that circumstantial evidence, such as coordinated travel and communication patterns revealed by CDRs and tower location data, was crucial. She asserted that her request for this data, along with specific hotel records, was necessary for a fair trial.
High Court’s Analysis and Decision
The High Court undertook a detailed analysis of the competing rights and procedural laws.
1. On the Production of CDRs and Tower Location Data: The Court’s most significant finding was on the admissibility of electronic location data. It acknowledged the right to privacy but stated it is not absolute and can be curtailed to ensure a fair adjudication. The judgment notes, “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.”
The bench concluded that CDRs and tower location data are “neutral business records” directly relevant to the issue. It held that ordering their production was not a “speculative fishing exercise” but was directly linked to the wife’s pleadings. To safeguard privacy, the Court directed that the data be submitted in a sealed cover.
2. On the Impleadment of the Alleged Paramour: The Court affirmed that an alleged paramour is a necessary party, reasoning that principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem) demand that a person facing serious allegations of adultery, which carry significant stigma, be given an opportunity to be heard.
3. On the Discovery of Hotel and Travel Records: Disagreeing with the Family Court, the High Court ruled that the wife’s request for specific hotel booking and travel records was not a “fishing inquiry.” Citing precedents, the bench emphasized that such records are crucial circumstantial evidence in adultery cases and directed the husband to produce them under confidentiality safeguards.
4. On the Production of Financial Documents: The High Court upheld the Family Court’s order directing the husband to produce relevant financial records, finding them pertinent to the wife’s maintenance claims.
Final Directions
The High Court disposed of the appeals by directing:
- The procurement of CDRs for the husband and tower location data for both the husband and the co-respondent, to be placed before the Family Court in a sealed cover.
- The production of specified financial and hotel booking records by the husband.
- The inspection of all documents under court supervision to prevent misuse.
