-
by Admin
19 December 2025 4:21 PM
“The impleadment of the alleged paramour in a proceeding founded upon adultery is not only necessary but also mandated by statutory rules and principles of natural justice” – Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar delivered a significant ruling in a batch of matrimonial appeals arising from proceedings before the Family Court. The case revolved around the legality of impleading an alleged paramour, disclosure of financial and communication records, and the scope of privacy in divorce proceedings under Section 13(1)(i) & (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The Court upheld the Family Court’s decision to implead the alleged paramour (R-2), directed controlled disclosure of CDRs and tower location records, and permitted production of specific hotel and financial records, while balancing the right to privacy under Article 21 with the procedural rights of the wife to fairly substantiate adultery allegations.
“Circumstantial Evidence like Hotel Stays, Call Records, and Travel Logs Are Admissible When Specifically Pleaded in Adultery Cases”
The judgment settles several contentious legal issues relating to procedural safeguards in adultery-based divorce petitions, privacy rights under Article 21, and admissibility of circumstantial and electronic evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Family Courts Act, 1984. The Court not only reaffirmed the necessity of impleading a third party accused of adultery but also clarified the standards for discovery and disclosure in family disputes.
The matrimonial dispute stemmed from a divorce petition filed by Smita Shrivastava (wife) against Sumit Verma (husband) under Sections 13(1)(i) and (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty and adultery. In her petition, she impleaded Ms. R-2, alleging that the latter maintained an illicit relationship with her husband, substantiated by alleged frequent travel, hotel stays, and digital communication.
The Family Court, by its common order dated 29.04.2025, had:
Dismissed R-2’s objection to her impleadment.
Allowed production of CDRs and tower data of the husband and R-2.
Directed partial discovery of the husband’s financial records.
Rejected production of certain digital and hotel stay records as “fishing enquiry”.
All four aggrieved parties filed separate appeals challenging these respective portions of the order.
On Impleadment of the Alleged Paramour (R-2)
The alleged paramour challenged her inclusion as a party, contending that the divorce petition lacked specific averments of sexual intercourse and was violative of her right to dignity and privacy. However, the Court squarely rejected this argument:
“The impleadment of the alleged paramour in a proceeding founded upon adultery is not only necessary but also mandated by statutory rules and principles of natural justice.” [Para 23]
Citing Rajesh Devi v. Jai Prakash and Padmavathi v. Sai Babu, the Bench reiterated that such impleadment is a substantive safeguard—not a mere procedural nicety. Even in the absence of explicit references to sexual intercourse, the Court held that specific allegations of hotel stays, travel, and communication were sufficient to infer a prima facie case of adultery.
“The law does not mandate ritualistic reproduction of precise words. What is required is that the pleadings convey with reasonable clarity the charge of adultery.” [Para 18]
On Production of Call Detail Records (CDRs) and Tower Location Data
R-2 and the husband challenged the Family Court’s order permitting disclosure of mobile location and CDRs from January 2020 onwards, alleging violation of their fundamental right to privacy under Article 21, as interpreted in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India.
The High Court carefully balanced informational privacy against fair trial rights, holding:
“In matrimonial disputes where adultery is alleged, courts have consistently held that proof may often be circumstantial... Such material cannot, therefore, be dismissed as a roving enquiry; it is directly relevant to the issue in controversy.” [Para 28]
Citing Linda Constance Edwards v. William Edwards, the Bench upheld the Family Court’s power under Section 151 CPC, Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, and Section 165 of the Evidence Act, to direct such disclosure. However, to ensure proportionality, the Court mandated that:
“Disclosure must remain confined to the specific period pleaded and that the records be produced in sealed cover, subject to confidentiality safeguards.” [Para 33]
On Discovery of Hotel Stays, WhatsApp Chats, and Travel Records
The Family Court had rejected the wife’s application seeking production of records such as hotel bookings, FASTag tolls, WhatsApp/Microsoft chats, etc., on grounds of speculative enquiry. The High Court set aside this blanket rejection, observing:
“A blanket refusal without considering relevance on a case-by-case basis risks undue curtailment of a party’s right to evidence.” [Para 38]
The Court allowed production of hotel booking and travel documents (Serial Nos. xvii to xxiv), citing that the wife’s application was detailed and specific, naming dates, locations, and persons involved.
Referring to K. Srinivasa Rao v. Nalam Naga Kamala Rani and Aparna Choudhrie Kala v. Vaibhav Kala, the Court noted:
“Hotel records, if properly pleaded, are primary circumstantial evidence in adultery cases and cannot be dismissed as mere fishing.” [Para 42]
However, digital chats and FASTag records were not permitted, given potential overreach and absence of custody.
On Production of Financial Documents
The husband challenged the order directing production of financial records, terming it premature since the issue of permanent alimony under Section 25 HMA arises only after divorce is granted. The Court rejected this objection:
“The directions ensure that the Wife has access to material directly relevant to her claims, in a manner proportionate to the issues in dispute.” [Para 51]
The discovery request was confined to documents relevant to pleaded issues, such as bank statements, UPI transactions, demat accounts, and ESOP details (Serial Nos. i to viii, x, xii, xiii).
The High Court dismissed all four appeals with modifications, upholding the Family Court’s substantive findings while introducing proportionality safeguards. The Court affirmed that privacy rights are not absolute and must yield to the right to a fair trial, especially when the evidence sought is specific, relevant, and pleaded with clarity.
This decision reaffirms the active evidentiary powers of Family Courts, the importance of fair procedural opportunities, and the constitutional balancing of privacy and truth-seeking in matrimonial cases.
Date of Decision: 29 August 2025
