Delhi High Court
Ms. Tanvi Chaturvedi vs Ms. Smita Shrivastava & Anr on 29 August, 2025
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on:18.08.2025
Judgment pronounced on: 29.08.2025
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 251/2025 and CM APPL. 50033/2025
MS. TANVI CHATURVEDI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Prateek Chaudhary, Adv.
versus
MS. SMITA SHRIVASTAVA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Prashant Ghai, Adv for R-
1.
Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv for R-
2.
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 285/2025 and CM APPL. 48858-48859/2025
SMITA SHRIVASTAVA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Prashant Ghai, Adv.
versus
SUMIT VERMA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv. for R-
1.
Mr. Prateek Chaudhary, Adv.
for R-2.
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 256/2025 and CM APPL. 41978/2025
MS. TANVI CHATURVEDI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Prateek Chaudhary, Adv.
versus
MS. SMITA SHRIVASTAVA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Prashant Ghai, Adv for R-
1.
Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv for R-
2.
Signature Not VerifiedMAT.APP.(F.C.) 251/2025 and connected matters Page 1 of 32
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:29.08.2025
12:26:22
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 275/2025 and CM APPL. 46455-46456/2025
SUMIT VERMA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv.
versus
SMITA SRIVASTAVA AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Prashant Ghai, Adv. for R-
1.
Mr. Prateek Chaudhary, Adv.
for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
JUDGMENT
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. The present batch of four connected Appeals assails different
parts of the common interlocutory Order passed on 29.04.2025
[hereinafter referred to as ―Impugned Order‖] by the Family Court.
All four Appeals arise out of the same matrimonial proceedings, being
HMA No. 479/2023, titled Smita Shrivastava v. Sumit Verma &
Anr., pending before the Family Court, and involve the same set of
parties. The Impugned Order, inter alia, addressed:
i. the impleadment of the alleged paramour as a party to the
proceedings;
ii. the production of certain documents under Order XI Rule
14 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as
―CPC‖]; and
iii. the disclosure of Call Detail Records [hereinafter referred
to as ―CDRs‖] and tower location details under Section 151 of
the CPC.
2. Since all four Appeals arise out of the same lis and turn upon
overlapping issues, they are being, with the consent of learned counsel
for the respective parties, disposed of by this consolidated judgment.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to by
their status they held before the Family Court. The Appellant in
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 285/2025 is the Wife/Petitioner [hereinafter referred
to as ―Wife‖]; the Appellant in MAT.APP.(F.C.) 275/2025 is the
Husband/Respondent No.1 [hereinafter referred to as ―Husband‖]; and
the Appellant in MAT.APP.(F.C.) 251/2025 & 256/2025 is the
impleaded Respondent No.2, alleged to be the paramour of the
Husband [hereinafter referred to as ―R-2‖].
Appeals and Reliefs
i. MAT.APP.(FC) 251/2025 (R2's Appeal -
Impleadment): Seeks setting aside of the Impugned Order to the
extent it rejects her application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the
CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC (and invoking Order VII
Rule 11 of the CPC) for striking off her name from the array of
parties in HMA 479/2023.
ii. MAT.APP.(FC) 256/2025 (R2's Appeal - Tower
Location/ CDRs): Challenge is to the Order allowing the Wife's
application under Section 151 of the CPC directing preservation
and production of tower location of the mobile phone allegedly
used by R-2, along with CDRs/tower location of the Husband for
the period January, 2020 till date.
iii. MAT.APP.(FC) 285/2025 (Wife's Appeal): Challenges
the disallowance of the Wife's prayer under Order XI Rule 14 of
the CPC for production of documents at serial nos. (ix), (xi), and
(xiv) to (xxiv) of her application, and seeks a direction to the
Husband to produce all documents enumerated therein.
iv. MAT.APP.(FC) 275/2025 (Husband's Appeal): Assails
the Impugned Order whereby the Family Court allowed the
Wife's application under Section 151 of the CPC application for
CDRs/tower location, and partly allowed the Wife's application
under Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC for production of certain
documents, directing production of some financial records, while
rejecting others as fishing/roving.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
4. The marriage between the Wife and the Husband was
solemnised on 10.10.2002 at New Delhi, as per Hindu rites and
ceremonies. Out of the said wedlock, two children were born on
31.12.2004 and 22.12.2010 respectively, both of whom presently
reside with the Wife. Matrimonial discord subsequently arose, which
led the wife to institute a petition under Section 13(1)(i) & (ia) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [hereinafter referred to as ―HMA‖],
registered as HMA No. 479/2023, seeking dissolution of marriage on
grounds of adultery and cruelty. In support of her allegation of
adultery, the Wife impleaded R-2 as co-respondent in the petition. The
core allegation is that the Husband and R-2 maintained an illicit
relationship and travelled/stayed together on multiple occasions at
specified hotels/guest houses and locations.
5. During pendency of HMA No. 479/2023, three interlocutory
applications came up for consideration before the Family Court:
i. R-2's application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC,
read with Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking deletion of her
name from the array of parties;
ii. The Wife's application under Section 151 of the CPC
seeking preservation/production of CDRs including tower
location of mobile phones used by the Husband and R-2; and
iii. The Wife's application under Order XI Rule 14 of the
CPC seeking production by the Husband of 24 categories of
documents.
6. Vide the common Impugned Order dated 29.04.2025, the
Family Court:
i. Dismissed R-2's application under Order I Rule 10(2) of
the CPC, holding that she was a necessary and proper party to the
proceedings;
ii. Allowed the Wife's application under Section 151 of the
CPC, directing the SHO and concerned telecom providers to
preserve and produce the CDRs of the Husband's mobile
number, along with tower location charts of the Husband and R-
2, for the period from January 2020 till date; and
iii. Partly allowed the Wife's application under Order XI
Rule 14 of the CPC, directing production by the Husband of
documents at serial nos. (i) to (viii), (x), (xii) and (xiii) --
essentially covering bank/credit card statements, UPI
transactions, demat accounts and ESOP details, while rejecting
production of the remaining documents, including WhatsApp,
Microsoft Teams and Facebook Messenger chats, FASTag
records, leave records, hotel bookings, travel details, on the
ground that these amounted to fishing and roving enquiries.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
7. R-2 (Appellant in MAT. APP. (F.C.) 251/2025):
7.1. The grievance of R-2 in this Appeal is directed against the
dismissal of her application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC read
with Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking deletion of her name from
the array of parties in HMA No. 479/2023.
7.2. It is contended that her impleadment in a matrimonial case
between the Husband and Wife was wholly misconceived. She placed
reliance upon Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC, Order VII Rule 11 of the
CPC, Order VI Rules 4 and 6 of the CPC, Section 21 of the Family
Courts Act, 1984 [hereinafter referred to as ―FC Act‖], as well as
Rules 12(a) and 7(g)(iii) of the Delhi High Court Hindu Marriage
Rules, 1979. According to her, these provisions make it a condition
precedent for impleadment that there must be clear and specific
pleadings of adultery, namely particulars of time, date, place, and act
of sexual intercourse.
7.3. It was argued that the petition filed by the Wife fell woefully
short of this threshold. The Wife had not averred even a single
instance of sexual intimacy, much less sexual intercourse, between the
Husband and R-2. The meetings pleaded in the petition, even if
accepted at face value, were confined to public spaces or professional
settings and could not give rise to a cause of action for impleadment.
R-2 submitted that in the absence of precise particulars, impleading
her amounted to nothing more than a roving and humiliating enquiry,
contrary to settled law that what is not pleaded cannot be proved.
7.4. R-2 further argued that the Family Court fell into error by
stretching the inference of ―adulterous relations‖ far beyond the
pleadings. R-2 contended that in the absence of explicit mention of
sexual intercourse, the Court could not infer such acts from vague or
general averments. The Family Court itself was unable to point to a
single paragraph where sexual intimacy could be discerned, and its
reasoning, in effect, substituted speculation for pleadings. Such an
approach, R-2 urged, was inconsistent with the very rules which
permit her impleadment -- the same rules that also mandate specific
particulars. There cannot be one threshold for making a third party a
respondent and another, lower threshold for inferring adultery from
vague assertions.
7.5. It was also submitted that impleadment exposes her to public
stigma and harassment, without any substantive basis. If at all her
testimony is considered necessary, the Wife always has recourse to the
ordinary law of evidence to summon her as a witness, without
arraying her as a party-respondent.
7.6. On these premises, it was prayed that the Impugned Order dated
29.04.2025 rejecting her application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the
CPC read with Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC be set aside, and her
name be struck off from the array of parties.
8. R-2(Appellant in MAT. APP. (F.C.) 256/2025):
8.1. R-2 has assailed the Impugned Order whereby the Family Court
allowed the application filed by the Wife under Section 151 of the
CPC directing disclosure of the tower location details of the mobile
phone used by R-2 from the year 2020 till date.
8.2. It was contended that the order suffers from grave illegality
inasmuch as it violates the R-2's fundamental right to privacy
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as recognised
in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India1 and subsequent
cases, which mandate that any invasion of privacy must meet the tests
of legality, necessity, and proportionality. It was urged that no prima
facie case of adultery had been made out in the pleadings of the Wife
that could justify such an intrusion. The divorce petition, according to
R-2, does not plead any specific instance of sexual intercourse
between the Husband and R-2, and in the absence of such particulars,
compelling disclosure of years of tower location data amounts to an
impermissible intrusion into her private life.
8.3. It was further contended that the application filed by the Wife is
in the nature of roving and fishing enquiry into the private life of R-2,
lacking precise particulars of time, place, or occurrence. In the
(2017) 10 SCC 1
absence of such particulars, the order directing disclosure of tower
location amounts to an unwarranted intrusion into her personal life,
and is contrary to the settled principle that pleadings cannot be
supplemented by speculative discovery.
8.4. It was also submitted that the petition has been filed with the
ulterior motive of harassing R-2 and damaging her reputation and
career. The Wife has no locus standi to seek details of R-2's private
data, and the Family Court failed to appreciate that her baseless
apprehensions cannot override the Appellant's constitutional rights.
The allegations of adultery, even otherwise, do not cross the threshold
required under Section 13(1)(i) of the HMA. It was urged that
compelling disclosure of several years of tower location data, without
strict necessity, not only violates privacy but also sets a dangerous
precedent in matrimonial disputes.
8.5. R-2 submits that the Impugned Order constitutes an
unwarranted intrusion into her fundamental rights and should
therefore be set aside.
9. Wife (Appellant in MAT. APP. (F.C.) 285/2025):
9.1. The Wife has assailed the Impugned Order, insofar as it partly
rejected her application under Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC seeking
discovery and production of certain documents at Serial Nos.(ix), (xi),
(xiv) to (xxiv) which, according to her, are essential for proving her
case of adultery and cruelty against the Husband.
9.2. It was contended that adultery, by its very nature, is a
clandestine act, and direct evidence is rarely available. Consequently,
circumstantial evidence such as coordinated travel, leave records, and
focused electronic communications assumes particular significance.
The Family Court's observation that the request amounted to a
‗fishing enquiry' was erroneous, as her application contained specific
particulars--names of hotels, dates of stays, and travel details--fully
satisfying legal thresholds.
9.3. The Wife urged that these documents are necessary not only for
proving adultery under Section 13(1)(i) of the HMA, 1955 but also for
determining permanent alimony under Section 25 of the HMA, as they
reveal the Husband's lifestyle and financial capacity. Denying access
to this evidence, she argued, deprives her of a fair trial. Reliance was
placed on Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
[hereinafter referred to as ―IE Act‖] and Section 14 of the FC Act,
which empower courts to receive material even if not strictly
admissible under the IE Act.
9.4. Judicial precedents were cited to support her claim. In Aparna
Choudhrie Kala & Anr. vs Vaibhav Kala2, this Court held that CDRs
and tower location constitute crucial evidence in adultery cases,
echoing the view in Radeena DN v. Rahul K3. Further reliance was
placed on Sachin Arora v. Manju Arora4, where this Court ruled that
production of hotel stays and call details does not amount to a roving
or fishing enquiry when the request is specific and particularized; the
Court also clarified that the right to privacy is not absolute and must
2024 SCC OnLine Del 876
2020 SCC OnLine Ker 20535
2023 SCC OnLine Del2692
yield to the right to a fair trial.
9.5. As to privacy concerns, the Wife submitted that extraction of
WhatsApp chats and call records can be undertaken through a
calibrated protocol with confidentiality safeguards, thereby balancing
the Husband's and R-2's privacy rights with her right to present
evidence.
9.6. On these grounds, it was prayed that the Impugned Order dated
29.04.2025 be set aside to the extent it disallows discovery, and the
Husband be directed to produce the requested records for effective
adjudication of her divorce petition.
10. Husband (Appellant in MAT. APP. (F.C.) 275/2025):
10.1. The Husband has assailed the Impugned Order dated
29.04.2025 to the extent it partly allowed the Wife's applications
under Section 151 of the CPC and Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC. It
was contended that the Family Court erred in directing disclosure of
the Husband's confidential financial records and in summoning CDRs
and tower location data, despite the Wife's failure to establish a prima
facie case of adultery or concealment of assets.
10.2. The Husband urged that his Affidavit of Income, Assets and
Expenditure had already been filed in strict compliance with Rajneesh
v. Neha5, and that no deficiency therein was ever pointed out by the
Wife. The Family Court, instead of requiring the Wife to place her
own full and candid disclosure of income, wrongly burdened the
(2021) 2 SCC 324
Husband with further disclosure of documents not relevant to the stage
of proceedings.
10.3. As regards financial documents (bank accounts, credit cards,
UPI transactions, demat and ESOP records), it was submitted that
these are wholly premature and unnecessary, since determination of
permanent alimony under Section 25 of the HMA arises only after
adjudication of the divorce petition. By compelling such discovery at
an interlocutory stage, the Family Court effectively allowed a fishing
and roving enquiry into his personal affairs, which is impermissible in
law.
10.4. The Husband also submitted that several of the categories of
documents sought were not within his possession, custody, or power,
particularly metadata, chats and electronic records spanning multiple
platforms. The Wife's demand for wholesale production of such
records amounted to an unbridled fishing and roving enquiry,
unsupported by specific pleadings.
10.5. As regards CDRs and tower location data, the Husband
contended that the directions are manifestly arbitrary. No specific
date, place, or incident of alleged adultery has been pleaded in the
Wife's petition. Mere telephonic conversations or tower proximity
cannot establish adulterous conduct, which must be proved by cogent
evidence.
10.6. While admitting that he frequently communicated with R-2, the
Husband explained that the same was necessitated purely by
professional obligations, as his headquarters are based in the United
States of America and client calls often take place across international
time zones. The Family Court failed to appreciate this context and
wrongly drew adverse inferences.
10.7. It was emphasized that the Husband is engaged in sensitive
international business dealings, and disclosure of voluminous financial
records and telecommunication data would compromise client
confidentiality and cause serious prejudice to his professional
standing. The Family Court failed to balance such concerns against
the Wife's speculative allegations.
10.8. The Husband also relied on the fact that the Wife's application
under Section 24 of the HMA had already been disposed of by consent
on 19.11.2024, and that she had been earlier denied interim
maintenance by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 13.09.2024.
Therefore, the discovery applications were not only premature but
stood effectively settled by earlier judicial orders.
10.9. On these grounds, it was prayed that the directions for
production of financial documents, CDRs and tower location data be
set aside and the Wife's applications be dismissed.
FINDINGS & ANALYSIS
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and
carefully perused the material on record. The principal issues which
arise for determination are:
i. Whether the Family Court rightly rejected R-2's
application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC read with
Section 151 of the CPC (and invocation of Order VII Rule 11 of
the CPC), for deletion of her name from the array of parties in
HMA No. 479/2023;
ii. Whether directing production of CDRs of the Husband
and tower location details of R-2 and the Husband, for the period
January 2020 till date under Section 151 of the CPC was
justified;
iii. Whether refusal to direct production of documents at
Serial Nos.(ix), (xi), and (xiv) to (xxiv) under Order XI Rule 14
of the CPC, as being a ―fishing and roving inquiry,‖ was legally
sustainable;
iv. Whether the Family Court rightly ordered partial
disclosure of the Husband's financial documents at Serial Nos.(i)
to (viii), (x), (xii), and (xiii) under Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC.
I. On the question of impleadment of R2
12. Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC empowers the Court, at any stage
of the proceedings, to strike out improperly joined parties or to add
parties whose presence is necessary for complete adjudication. The
provision reads as under:
"The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or
without the application of either party, and on such terms as may
appear to the Court to be just, order that- the name of any party
improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out,
and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined,
whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court
may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and
completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in
the suit, be added."
13. In the context of matrimonial disputes, this discretion is
circumscribed by the statutory framework. Section 13(1)(i) of the
HMA recognises adultery as a distinct ground for divorce. The
procedural framework governing such petitions requires that full
particulars of the alleged matrimonial offence be furnished, including
the identity of the person alleged to be involved. Courts have
consistently required impleadment of such person to ensure fairness in
adjudication.
14. This requirement is not one of mere procedural convenience,
but stems from the principles of natural justice as consistently
recognised by judicial precedent.
15. The rationale behind this mandate is twofold. First, allegations
of adultery, if proved, entail serious civil consequences and stigma
upon the alleged paramour. To record such findings without affording
them a right of hearing would be contrary to the principle of audi
alteram partem. Second, the Family Court cannot effectively or fairly
adjudicate the ground of adultery without the presence of the alleged
participant. This legislative mandate also underscores a policy choice
that allegations of adultery, by their very nature, touch upon the
reputation and dignity of a third party, and therefore justice requires
that such person be given a fair opportunity to defend themselves.
16. This position has also been judicially affirmed. In Rajesh Devi
v. Jai Prakash.6, wherein the Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana
2019 SCC OnLine P&H6239
Court held that a decree of divorce on the ground of adultery cannot
be granted without impleading the alleged adulterer or adulteress as a
party. The Court emphasized that such impleadment is not merely
procedural, but a substantive safeguard flowing from natural justice,
since any finding of adultery visits serious stigma upon the third party
concerned.
17. Similarly, in Padmavathi v. Sai Babu7, the Andhra Pradesh
High Court held that even in the absence of an express statutory rule,
the alleged adulterer/adulteress is a necessary and proper party to
divorce proceedings under Section 13(1)(i) of the HMA. The Court
observed that a person against whom a finding of adultery is likely to
be recorded cannot be condemned unheard, and his or her presence
enables the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon the
controversy. Impleadment, safeguards both natural justice and judicial
propriety, and without such joinder, no effective decree can be passed.
18. Learned counsel for R-2 contended that the Wife's petition is
defective as it does not specifically use the expression ―sexual
intercourse‖ in her pleadings, which, according to him, is a statutory
requirement to sustain a charge of adultery. We find no merit in this
contention. The petition, read as a whole, clearly sets out a case that
the Husband maintained adulterous relations with R-2, supported by
particulars of travel, stay and communication alleged to be of an
intimate nature. Once the foundation of adultery is pleaded, the law
does not mandate ritualistic reproduction of the precise words. What is
required is that the pleadings, taken together, convey with reasonable
2012 SCC OnLine AP 1281
clarity the charge of adultery; the Wife's petition satisfies that
threshold.
19. This position finds support in Order VI Rule 2 of the CPC,
which governs pleadings:
"Rule 2: Pleading to state material facts and not evidence.--
(1) Every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a
concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies
for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by
which they are to be proved.
(2) Every pleading shall, when necessary, be divided into paragraphs,
numbered consecutively, each allegation being, so far as is
convenient, contained in a separate paragraph.
(3) Dates, sums and numbers shall be expressed in a pleading in
figures as well as in words."
20. The above-quoted provision mandates that pleadings shall
contain a concise statement of material facts, without setting out the
evidence by which those facts are to be proved. The Act does not
require a petition to set out evidence or employ any particular formula
of words. Thus, the absence of the specific phrase relied upon by R-2
does not render the pleadings defective.
21. Section 14 of the FC Act further reinforces this approach, which
reads as under:
"14. Application of Indian Evidence Act, 1872--
A Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement,
documents, information or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it to
deal effectually with a dispute, whether or not the same would be
otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act,
1872."
22. This provision clothes the Family Court with wider latitude in
evaluating the pleadings and materials, and reinforces the view that
technical formalities of wording or evidence cannot be imported to
defeat the substance of an allegation.
23. For all these reasons, we find no infirmity in the Family Court's
refusal to strike off the name of R-2. 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.
The plea of R-2, therefore, must fail.
II. On the Direction for Production of CDRs and Tower Location
Data
24. The next issue concerns the direction of the Family Court,
passed under Section 151 of the CPC, requiring production of the
Husband's CDRs and tower location data of both the Husband and R-
2 for the period from January, 2020 to till date. The contention is that
such an order infringes the fundamental right to privacy and amounts
to a fishing enquiry, divorced from the pleadings.
25. Section 151 of the CPC preserves the inherent powers of the
Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice.
In matrimonial proceedings, such powers stand enlarged by Section 14
of the FC Act. The legislative intent is clear -- the Family Court,
unlike an ordinary Civil Court, is not straitjacketed by technical rules
of evidence, and is empowered to adopt procedures to ascertain the
truth
26. Equally relevant is Section 165 of the IE Act, which empowers
the Court to put questions in any form, at any time, to any witness or
party, in order to discover or obtain proof of relevant facts, which
reads as under:
"165. Judge's power to put questions or order production. --
"The Judge may, in order to discover or to obtain proper proof of
relevant facts, ask any question he pleases, in any form, at any time, of
any witness, or of the parties, about any fact relevant or irrelevant;
and may order the production of any document or thing; and neither
the parties nor their agents shall be entitled to make any objection to
any such question or order, nor, without the leave of the Court, to
cross-examine any witness upon any answer given in reply to any such
question:
Provided that the judgment must be based upon facts declared by this
Act to be relevant, and duly proved:
Provided also that this section shall not authorize any Judge to
compel any witness to answer any question, or to produce any
document which such witness would be entitled to refuse to answer or
produce under sections 121 to 131, both inclusive, if the question were
asked or the document were called for by the adverse party; nor shall
the Judge ask any question which it would be improper for any other
person to ask under section 148 or 149; nor shall he dispense with
primary evidence of any document, except in the cases hereinbefore
excepted.."
This provision underscores the inquisitorial role of matrimonial
courts, which are not passive arbiters but are tasked with actively
eliciting truth.
27. At the same time, the Right to Privacy, recognised as a
Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in
K.S. Puttaswamy (supra) cannot be disregarded. The collection and
disclosure of CDRs and tower location data implicates informational
privacy, since such records reveal not only communication patterns
but also physical movements. The Family Court, while empowered to
summon evidence must therefore, ensure that its directions are
proportionate and justified by a legitimate aim.
28. 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. Such material cannot, therefore, be dismissed
as a roving enquiry; it is directly relevant to the issue in controversy.
29. In the present case, the Wife has specifically pleaded that the
Husband maintained an adulterous relationship with R-2, supported by
particulars of travel and communication during the period beginning
January 2020. The Wife obviously does not have any direct evidence
of her husband indulging in acts of adultery. By resort to Section 14 of
the FC Act, she is only trying to seek production of evidence which
she reasonably believes will prove her charge of adultery which by its
very nature can be inferred only from circumstances. In this regard,
reference may be made to the observations of the Coordinate Bench of
this Court in Linda Constance Edwards v. William Edwards & Anr.8,
relevant paragraphs whereof reads as under:-
"20. It is said that the adultery is committed in darkness and secrecy
and, therefore, it is difficult to provide a direct proof. Rather
eyewitness account or photographic account of evidence of
intercourse is taken as offending. A celebrated jurist Raydon in
Raydon on Divorce observes that a direct evidence is rather apt to be
disbelieved as it smacks of manipulation. It is rare that the parties are
surprised in direct act of adultery. In the opinion of Sir William Scott
in Lovedon v. Lovedon, 2 Hagg Con, 1810 Australian Family Law
455), "the only general rule that can be laid down upon the subject is
that the circumstances must be such as would lead the guarded
(2000) SCC OnLine Del 933
discretion of a reasonable and just man to the conclusion, for it is not
to lead a harsh and intemperatejudgment, moving upon appearances
that are equally capable of two interpretations, neither is it to be a
matter of artificial reasoning, judging upon such things differently
from what would strike the careful and cautious consideration of a
discreet man."
21. Thus the adultery is to be inferred from circumstances which must
indicate inclination, guilty intention and opportunity to commit
adultery. Bed room evidence is one of such strong circumstances as
way back in 1909 in Kerr v. Kerr, 114 App. Div. 1421, it was observed
that where man and a woman who are not husband and wife have bed
room privacy, there is strong inference of adultery as they do not sing
prayers there"
30. Therefore, the direction to disclose CDRs and tower location
data is not a speculative fishing exercise, but one directly tied to the
pleadings. Being neutral business records maintained by telecom
operators, such data can provide corroborative circumstantial
evidence, without trenching upon the substantive content of private
communications.
31. In Sharda v. Dharmpal9, the Supreme Court upheld limited
incursions into personal privacy in matrimonial disputes, holding that
such directions are permissible if necessary to arrive at the truth. The
same principle applies to CDRs and location data, which are objective
records capable of aiding adjudication.
32. We are of the view that the Family Court's directions cannot be
faulted in principle. However, proportionality requires that such
disclosure be limited in scope so as to prevent undue invasion into the
personal domain of the Husband and R-2. The disclosure must,
therefore, be confined to a reasonable timeframe corresponding to the
period alleged in the pleadings, and the material should be received in
(2003) 4 SCC 493
sealed cover, subject to confidentiality safeguards. This would strike a
balance between the Wife's right to a fair adjudication of her
allegations and the privacy interests of the Husband and R-2.
33. Accordingly, the directions of the Family Court for disclosure of
CDRs of the Husband and tower location data of both R-2 and the
Husband for the period from January 2020 to till date was justified in
law and on facts. However, proportionality demands that such
disclosures remain confined to the specific period pleaded, and that
the records be produced in sealed cover, subject to confidentiality
safeguards.
34. Before adverting to Issue Nos.(III) and (IV), it would be
appropriate to reproduce the list of documents sought by the Wife
through her application under Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC, as under:
i. Credit card statements for last three years of the Husband
of ICICI Bank account bearing No. 137001513918.
ii. Credit card statements for last three years of the Husband
of HDFC Bank account bearing No. 00491140001836.
iii. Credit card statement for last three years of the Husband
of HDFC Bank account bearing No. 50100086929926.
iv. Credit card statement for last three years of the Husband
with Bank of Baroda account bearing No. 199201000008301.
v. PayTM transaction statements for last three years of the
Husband.
vi. Sodexo meal pass statements for the last three years of
the Husband.
vii. Grofers application statements for the last 03 years of the
Husband.
viii. Amazon purchase records and statements for the last 03
years of the Husband.
ix. Leave records of the Husband and R-2 for the last 03
years.
x. UPI transaction records and statements for the last three
years of the Husband.
xi. FastTag statements for the last three years of the
Husband
xii. Demat account statements of Zerodha & ICICI Direct of
the Husband.
xiii. Details of Stock option/ESOPS of the Husband at M/s
Soterius Life Sciences India Private Limited.
xiv. Whatsapp call and chat records between the Husband and
R-2 from 01.01.2021 to 01.03.2024.
xv. Facebook messenger chat records between the Husband
and R2from 01.01.2021 to 01.03.2024.
xvi. Microsoft teams call and chat records between the
Husband and R-2 from 01.01.2021 to 01.03.2024.
xvii. Invoice and booking details of hotel stay of the Husband,
R-2 and their colleague Parul at Hindustan Aeronautics Limited-
HALGuest House. Lucknow from11.09.2021 to 14.09.2021.
xviii. Invoice and booking details of hotel stay of the Husband
and R-2 at Hilton Hotel, Lucknow from 15.11.2021
to18.11.2021.
xix. Invoice and booking details of hotel stay of the Husband
and R-2 at Hyatt Regency, Lucknow on 19.11.202l.
xx. Invoice and booking details of hotel stay of the Husband
and R-2 at Hindustan Aeronautics Limited- HAL Guest House,
Lucknow from 09.03.2022 to 13.03.2022 along with call record
details.
xxi. Invoice and booking details of hotel stay of the Husband
and R-2 at Gomti Hotel, Lucknow from 28.04.2022 to
02.05.2022.
xxii. Invoice and booking details of hotel stay of the Husband
and R-2 at Hotel Radisson Red, Chandigarh from 07.04.2022 to
08.04.2022.
xxiii. Invoice and booking details of hotel stay of the Husband
and R-2 at Golden Tulip Hotel, Panchkula on 09.04.2022.
xxiv. Visit/travel details of the Husband to Ajmer on
17.04.2022.
III. On the Production of Documents at Serial Nos.(ix), (xi), and
(xiv to xxiv) under Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC
35. The third issue concerns the Family Court's refusal to direct
production of certain documents listed at Serial Nos.(ix), (xi), and
(xiv) to (xxiv) in the Wife's application under Order XI Rule 14 of the
CPC, on the ground that such directions would amount to a ―fishing
and roving inquiry.‖The grievance raised is that the Family Court did
not permit production of documents which, according to the Wife,
could assist in substantiating her case.
36. Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC empowers a party to apply for
production of documents in the possession or power of the opposite
party, if such documents relate to matters in question in the suit. The
said Rule reads as under:
""Order XI Rule 14-- Production of documents
It shall be lawful for the Court, at any time during the pendency of any
suit, to order the production by any party thereto, upon oath, of such
of the documents in his possession or power, relating to any matter in
question in such suit, as the Court shall think right; and the Court may
deal with such documents, when produced, in such manner as shall
appear just."
37. The scope of discovery under this provision is wide but not
unlimited. Courts have consistently held that discovery is intended to
facilitate fair trial and enable parties to substantiate their claims or
defenses. It cannot, however, be used as a vehicle to compel
production of irrelevant or extraneous material. The exercise must be
guided by relevance to the matters in issue, and the applicant must
demonstrate a prima facie link between the requested documents and
the claim or defense.
38. In the present case, the Family Court found that the documents
sought at Serial Nos.(ix), (xi), and (xiv) to (xxiv) were not sufficiently
particularized in the pleadings or were beyond the scope of the matters
in dispute, and therefore constituted a ―fishing and roving enquiry.‖
While the Court is correct in disallowing requests which are purely
speculative, a blanket rejection without considering relevance on a
case-by-case basis risks undue curtailment of a party's right to
evidence. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the Court
must adopt a practical and flexible approach while dealing with
applications under Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC.
39. In the instant case, the Wife's application clearly seeks
documents relating to financial transactions, communications, and
associations relevant to the allegations of adultery and maintenance
claims. While certain documents may need to be narrowed in scope to
avoid burdening the Husband unnecessarily, a blanket refusal on the
ground of ―fishing inquiry‖ would defeat the purpose of Order XI
Rule 14 of the CPC.
40. Accordingly, we find that the Family Court's rejection of
documents at Serial Nos.(ix), (xi), and (xiv) to (xxiv) requires
reconsideration. The directions for production should be granted
subject to reasonable limitations, ensuring that the scope corresponds
to the matters specifically pleaded and relevant to the issues in
controversy. Safeguards such as inspection under Court supervision,
or production in sealed covers, may be imposed to prevent misuse
while securing access to evidence.
41. In K. Srinivasa Rao v. Nalam Naga Kamala Rani & Anr.10, the
Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed production of hotel records
sought to substantiate claims of adultery, emphasizing that such
records constitute primary evidence and may be preserved by third
parties to prevent destruction, with production before the Court at the
appropriate stage of trial. The relevant extract of the said decision
reads as under:
"Further, when the petitioner-husband specifically sought divorce on
the ground of adultery, the subject documents may be crucial to
establish the alleged adulterous relationship between the first
respondent-wife and the second respondent. Though photocopies seem
to have been procured by the petitioner husband of some of the
incriminating documents, the original record summoned from the
hotels concerned would be important primary evidence. Therefore, the
Civil Revision Petition No. 2385 and 2466/2018 - Telangana High Court dated 13.07.2018
learned Family Court Judge ought not to have brushed aside the plea
of the petitioner-husband for summoning of these documents despite
his power to do so under Order 16 Rule 6 CPC.
The orders under revision are accordingly set aside and the civil
revision petitions are allowed. The learned Judge, Family Court,
Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, shall issue summons to the
management of both the hotels concerned for production of the
documents sought by the petitioner-husband and thereafter proceed in
the matter in accordance with law."
42. Similarly, in Aparna Choudhrie Kala (supra), this Court
allowed the production and preservation of telephonic call details,
mobile tower data, and hotel records in a case alleging adultery. The
Court emphasized that preventing such evidence from being brought
before the Family Court would not serve the interest of justice. The
records were to be preserved by third parties to prevent destruction
and produced at the appropriate stage of trial, ensuring that the parties'
privacy concerns were balanced against the right to a fair trial. This
reinforces the principle that circumstantial evidence, particularly hotel
stays, travel logs, and communications, is crucial in establishing
allegations of adultery and cannot be summarily rejected as
speculative.
43. Further, in Sachin Arora (supra), this Court emphasized that
the production of records concerning a spouse's hotel stays or call
details, sought for the purpose of proving adultery, does not constitute
a ‗roving or fishing inquiry' when the request is specific and
particularized. The Court further held that the right to privacy of the
husband is not absolute and must yield to the right of a fair trial. It is,
however, noted that the said judgment has been challenged before the
Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (SLP (C)
11643/2023) and is currently pending adjudication. The Husband has
brought this fact to the Court's notice. Accordingly, while the
principles in Sachin Arora (supra) are relevant for consideration, they
are subject to the outcome of the pending SLP.
44. In conclusion, we affirm the Family Court's decision insofar as
it rejected documents at Serial Nos.(ix), (xi), (xiv), (xv) and (xvi) as
speculative and unrelated to the matters in dispute. However, the
documents at Serial Nos.(xvii), (xviii), (xix), (xx,) (xxi), (xxii), (xxiii)
and (xxiv) shall be allowed for production, subject to proportionality
and Court-imposed safeguards such as inspection under Court
supervision or production in sealed covers to prevent misuse.
IV. On the Production of Financial Documents at Serial Nos. (i to
viii), (x), (xii), and (xiii) under Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC
45. The final issue concerns the Family Court's partial allowance of
the Wife's application under Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC, whereby
directions for production of certain financial documents of the
Husband at Serial Nos. (i) to (viii), (x), (xii) and (xiii) were granted,
while the remainder were rejected. The challenge is whether the Court
correctly exercised its discretion in permitting partial disclosure.
46. Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC, as discussed above, empowers a
party to seek production of documents in the possession, custody or
power of the opposite party, if such documents relate to matters in
question in the suit. The Court must ensure that this right is exercised
in a manner that is proportionate and does not permit undue fishing or
harassment, while also preventing obstruction of access to genuinely
relevant evidence.
47. In exercising discretion, the Court must balance the right to
evidence with the need to protect parties from undue burden or
intrusion into private matters not relevant to the issues in dispute. The
Court is not bound to grant all requests automatically; it may narrow
or refuse requests which are irrelevant, speculative, or
disproportionate.
48. In the present case, it is not as if the Wife is seeking
information about any stranger staying in the hotel, her plea is only for
records pertaining to her legally wedded husband, who she has a
reason to believe is indulging in adultery with a particular lady in a
particular room. The Wife has sought details of her husband's stay in
a particular hotel during a specific time period and not of his friend or
the friend's daughter. Similarly, she has also sought the call details of
her husband alone, whose phone numbers she has provided. Once the
Wife is seeking specific information regarding her husband's stay
during a specific period at a specific hotel, it cannot be said that the
Wife is indulging in any roving and fishing inquiry. None of the
Wife's prayers, therefore, seek any information about any stranger or
about any vague incident or period.
49. The Family Court directed production of financial documents
that were specifically relevant to the Wife's claims, including bank
statements, investment records, and documents evidencing income
and assets [Serial Nos.(i) to (viii), (x), (xii) and (xiii)]. At the same
time, it rejected documents that were beyond the scope of the
pleadings or not directly connected to the issues of maintenance,
income, or financial standing.
50. This approach reflects a reasoned exercise of judicial discretion.
By allowing production of documents directly pertinent to the issues
in dispute, the Court ensured the Wife's access to necessary evidence,
while avoiding unnecessary intrusion into unrelated financial matters.
Such a calibrated approach aligns with the principle of proportionality
and prevents the discovery process from becoming a fishing
expedition.
51. Accordingly, the Family Court was justified in allowing the
production of financial documents at Serial Nos.(i) to (viii), (x), (xii)
and (xiii) under Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC. The directions ensure
that the Wife has access to material directly relevant to her claims, in a
manner proportionate to the issues in dispute, and do not constitute an
abuse of the discovery process.
CONCLUSION & OPERATIVE DIRECTIONS
52. In view of the foregoing discussion, we summarize our findings
on the issues arising for determination as follows:
i. On the impleadment of R-2 (Issue I): The Family Court
rightly rejected R-2's application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the
CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC and Order VII Rule 11 of
the CPC seeking deletion of her name from the array of parties.
Impleadment of the alleged paramour is both statutorily
mandated and necessary to uphold the principles of natural
justice.
ii. On the production of CDRs and tower location data
(Issue II): The Family Court correctly allowed the Wife's
application under Section 151 of the CPC for production of the
Husband's CDRs and tower location data of both the Husband
and R-2 for the period January, 2020 till date. The directions are
proportionate, directly connected to the pleadings, and are to be
complied with under confidentiality safeguards in sealed covers
iii. On the production of documents under Order XI Rule 14
of the CPC (Issue III): The Family Court's rejection of
documents at Serial Nos.(xvii), (xviii), (xix), (xx), (xxi), (xxii),
(xxiii)and (xxiv) is set aside. Production of these documents is
directed, subject to reasonable limitations and Court-imposed
safeguards, including inspection under Court supervision or in
sealed covers, to ensure proportionality and prevent misuse.
iv. On the production of financial documents at Serial Nos.
(i to viii), (x), (xii), and (xiii) (Issue IV): The Family Court
correctly allowed production of the financial documents at Serial
Nos. (i) to (viii), (x), (xii), and (xiii). Documents beyond the
scope of the pleadings and not directly relevant to the Wife's
claims were rightly excluded.
DIRECTIONS:
53. (a) The SHO, P.S. Vasant Kunj (South), South-West District
shall call for the Call Detail Records (CDRs) of mobile number
9910106100 (used by the Husband) and tower location charts of
mobile numbers 9910106100 (the Husband) and 9818910447 (R-2)
for the period from January, 2020 to till date from the concerned
telecom service providers. The SHO shall ensure that the said records,
once received, are placed in the Family Court record in a sealed cover,
accessible only to the Court and counsel for the parties, subject to
strict confidentiality safeguards. A copy of this direction shall also be
issued to the concerned telecom service providers to facilitate
compliance.
(b) The Husband is directed to produce the financial records
enumerated at Serial Nos.(i) to (viii), (x), (xii), and (xiii) of the
Wife's application under Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC.
(c) The Husband shall further produce the documents specified at
Serial Nos.(xvii) to (xxiv), relating to hotel bookings and allied
details, subject to the confidentiality safeguards outlined in paragraph
54(a).
(d) The inspection of all documents so produced shall be carried out
within the Court premises, or under such supervision as the Family
Court may deem appropriate, to ensure their use remains strictly
confined to the proceedings and to prevent any misuse or unauthorized
disclosure.
54. Accordingly, the Appeals, along with pending applications, are
disposed of in the above terms.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
HARISHVAIDYANATHANSHANKAR, J.
AUGUST 29, 2025/sg/pl
