Supreme Court: In a civil appeal challenging Delhi High Court’s judgment dated 10 May 2023, wherein it upheld the Family Court’s directions for preservation and production of the hotel records and call detail records in sealed cover, holding that seeking hotel stay and call record details to prove the charge of adultery would not violate right to privacy, the Division Bench of Manmohan and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ., upheld the impugned judgment.
Background
In the instant matter, the parties were married on 4 December 1998 according to Hindu rites and had a daughter. Their marital relationship later deteriorated. The respondent-wife alleged cruelty, domestic violence and adultery. She asserted that between 29 April 2022 and 1 May 2022, the petitioner-husband stayed with another woman and her daughter in a room at Hotel Fairmont, Jaipur.
The wife relied upon photographs showing the husband in the company of the woman at the hotel. She requested the hotel to provide booking details, reservation records, identity proofs of occupants and payment information concerning Room No. 219. When the hotel declined to furnish the information, she approached the Family Court and sought for preservation and production of the husband’s call detail records for 2 mobile numbers. The Family Court directed the hotel and telecom companies to preserve and send the relevant material in sealed cover.
High Court’s Judgment
The issues for consideration before the High Court were:
-
Whether the wife had been able to make out a prima facie case and the information sought by her could be said to be relevant for determining the lis between the parties?
-
Whether the information sought by the wife would amount to infringement of the right to privacy of the husband or of his lady friend or that of the minor child?
The Court observed that the wife had no direct evidence of her husband indulging in acts of adultery and by resort to Section 14, Family Courts Act, 1984 (FCA), she was, only trying to seek production of evidence which she reasonably believed would prove her charge of adultery which by its very nature could be inferred only from circumstances. The Court opined that the wife had not only been able to make out a prima facie case against the husband but also that the information which she was seeking would be relevant for proving the charge of adultery which she had levelled against her husband.
“Section 14, FCA was carved in a slightly different manner giving very wide powers to the Family Court in matters of receiving evidence. It was, therefore, open for the Family Court to receive any evidence which might assist the Court to effectively deal with the dispute irrespective of whether the said evidence was relevant or admissible under the Evidence Act, 1872.”
The Court further opined that it was not inclined to accept the husband’s plea as the wife’s claim was based solely on the right to privacy which, as held in K.S. Puttuswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, and Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39, was not an absolute right; on the other hand, the wife’s prayer was based not only on morality but also on specific rights granted under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and FCA.
The Court asserted that the Family Court by way of the impugned orders had sought records which pertained only to the respondent’s husband and not to his friend or her daughter. Therefore, there was no question about their right of privacy being violated in any manner.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the husband’s petition and upheld the Family Court’s directions for preservation and production of the hotel records and call detail records in sealed cover.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal and declined to interfere with the High Court judgment.
[Sachin Arora v. Manju Arora, Civil Appeal No. 400 of 2024, decided on 2-7-2026]
