Delhi High Court: Mandatory to Implead Alleged Paramour in Divorce Pleas on Ground of Adultery | Evidence Like CDRs and Financial Records Permissible with Safeguards
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar pronounced its judgment on 29 August 2025, disposing of a batch of four connected appeals arising out of matrimonial proceedings. The Bench directed that the impleadment of the alleged paramour in divorce proceedings on grounds of adultery is necessary, upheld the Family Court’s order directing the preservation and production of call detail records and tower location data, ordered partial production of financial records of the husband, and mandated the production of specific hotel booking records. Confidentiality safeguards, including sealed covers and supervised inspections, were prescribed to prevent misuse of sensitive evidence.
The appeals arose from interlocutory orders passed by the Family Court on 29 April 2025 in HMA No. 479/2023. The matrimonial proceedings were instituted under Section 13(1)(i) and (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, wherein the wife sought dissolution of marriage on grounds of adultery and cruelty. The parties to the appeals included the wife as petitioner, the husband as respondent no.1, and the alleged paramour as respondent no.2.
The marriage between the wife and husband was solemnised on 10 October 2002 in New Delhi. Two children were born from the wedlock on 31 December 2004 and 22 December 2010, both of whom currently reside with the wife. Alleging that the husband maintained an illicit relationship with respondent no.2, the wife impleaded her in the divorce petition. The allegations included claims of joint travel and stays at specified hotels and guest houses.
During pendency of proceedings, three applications came before the Family Court: first, the alleged paramour’s application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC read with Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking deletion of her name from the array of parties; second, the wife’s application under Section 151 CPC seeking production of call detail records and tower location data of the husband and respondent no.2; and third, the wife’s application under Order XI Rule 14 CPC seeking production of 24 categories of documents, including financial records, electronic communications, and travel bookings.
By the common impugned order, the Family Court dismissed the alleged paramour’s plea for deletion of her name, allowed the wife’s application for call detail records and tower location data, and partly allowed the wife’s application for production of documents. The Family Court directed the husband to produce bank and credit card statements, UPI transaction records, demat account statements, and ESOP details. However, requests for WhatsApp chats, Microsoft Teams chats, and FASTag records were rejected as constituting a fishing inquiry.
Aggrieved, four separate appeals were filed. Respondent no.2 challenged both her impleadment and the direction to disclose tower location data. The wife challenged the refusal to direct production of certain documents. The husband contested the directions for production of financial records and call detail records.
Respondent no.2, in her appeal against impleadment, argued that impleadment in matrimonial proceedings was misconceived absent specific pleadings of sexual intercourse. It was submitted that the wife had not averred a single instance of intimacy, and impleadment subjected her to stigma and harassment without substantive basis. Reliance was placed on provisions including Order I Rule 10 CPC, Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and Rules 12(a) and 7(g)(iii) of the Delhi High Court Hindu Marriage Rules, 1979. It was further contended that if her testimony was required, she could be summoned as a witness without impleadment.
In the appeal against disclosure of tower location data, respondent no.2 argued that the order violated her fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 as recognised in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India. It was submitted that no prima facie case of adultery had been made out and that disclosure of years of location data was disproportionate and amounted to a roving inquiry. It was also contended that the proceedings were initiated with an ulterior motive to harass and damage her reputation.
The wife, in her appeal, contended that adultery is a clandestine act rarely proved by direct evidence and that circumstantial evidence such as travel and communication records is vital. It was argued that her application contained specific particulars including names of hotels and dates, which met the required threshold. The wife further submitted that the requested records were necessary both to prove adultery and to determine permanent alimony under Section 25 of the HMA. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents including Aparna Choudhrie Kala v. Vaibhav Kala, Radeena DN v. Rahul K, and Sachin Arora v. Manju Arora. As to privacy concerns, the wife submitted that records could be extracted under confidentiality safeguards.
The husband, in his appeal, contended that he had already filed an affidavit of income, assets, and expenditure as mandated in Rajneesh v. Neha, and that no deficiency had been pointed out. It was argued that disclosure of further financial documents was premature since permanent alimony arises only after adjudication of divorce. The husband submitted that several categories of documents sought were not in his possession and that requests for chats and metadata amounted to fishing inquiries. He also contended that tower location data could not establish adultery and that his communication with respondent no.2 was professional in nature. Further, he submitted that disclosure would compromise client confidentiality in his international business dealings.
The Bench considered the issues arising for determination: whether impleadment of respondent no.2 was justified, whether production of call detail records and tower location data was permissible, whether refusal to direct production of certain documents was sustainable, and whether the Family Court rightly ordered partial disclosure of financial records.
On impleadment, the Court referred to Order I Rule 10(2) CPC and stated: “The provision clothes the Court with discretion to strike out improperly joined parties or to add parties whose presence is necessary for complete adjudication.” The Court observed that impleadment in cases alleging adultery was mandated by principles of natural justice and judicial precedent. “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.” The Court cited Rajesh Devi v. Jai Prakash and Padmavathi v. Sai Babu in support of this position.
Rejecting respondent no.2’s argument that pleadings were defective for not specifically mentioning “sexual intercourse,” the Court stated: “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 clarity the charge of adultery; the Wife’s petition satisfies that threshold.” The Court referred to Order VI Rule 2 CPC, noting that pleadings need only contain material facts and not evidence.
On call detail records and tower location data, the Court referred to Section 151 CPC and Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, observing that Family Courts possess inherent powers and wider latitude in receiving evidence. It also referred to Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, stating: “This provision underscores the inquisitorial role of matrimonial courts, which are not passive arbiters but are tasked with actively eliciting truth.” While acknowledging privacy rights recognised in K.S. Puttaswamy, the Court held that disclosure was justified where proportionate and tied to pleadings. “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.”
The Court cited Linda Constance Edwards v. William Edwards, observing: “Adultery is to be inferred from circumstances which must indicate inclination, guilty intention and opportunity to commit adultery. Bedroom privacy has been considered a strong circumstance.” The Court further stated: “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.”
On proportionality, the Court observed: “The disclosure must be confined to a reasonable timeframe corresponding to the period alleged in the pleadings, and the material should be received in sealed cover, subject to confidentiality safeguards.” Thus, the Court upheld the Family Court’s order with modifications to ensure proportionality.
On production of documents, the Court reproduced the list of 24 categories sought by the wife. It referred to Order XI Rule 14 CPC, stating: “The scope of discovery 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 defences. It cannot, however, be used as a vehicle to compel production of irrelevant or extraneous material.” The Court noted that while some requests were speculative, a blanket rejection was inappropriate. It held that documents relating to hotel stays and travel were directly relevant to the allegations and should be produced subject to safeguards.
The Court cited K. Srinivasa Rao v. Nalam Naga Kamala Rani, Aparna Choudhrie Kala v. Vaibhav Kala, and Sachin Arora v. Manju Arora to support the production of circumstantial evidence such as hotel records and call data. On the latter case, it recorded that the judgment had been challenged before the Supreme Court and was pending.
On financial documents, the Court observed: “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. At the same time, it rejected documents that were beyond the scope of the pleadings.” The Court upheld this calibrated approach as proportionate and reasonable.
The Court issued specific directions. It ordered: “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.”
The Court further directed: “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.” It also ordered: “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.”
Regarding inspection, the Court directed: “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.” The appeals and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Prateek Chaudhary, Advocate; Mr. Prashant Ghai, Advocate; Mr. Prashant Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Prateek Chaudhary, Advocate; Mr. Prashant Ghai, Advocate; Mr. Prashant Singh, Advocate
Case Title: XXX v YYY & Anr
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:7474-DB
Case Number: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 251/2025, 285/2025, 256/2025, 275/2025
Bench: Justice Anil Kshetarpal, Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
