Delhi High Court landmark ruling holds that if a wife suspects her husband is cheating, she can legally access his call records and hotel location data to prove adultery.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court has upheld a wife’s right to seek her husband’s call detail records (CDRs) and tower location data, along with that of his alleged paramour, to substantiate charges of adultery in divorce proceedings.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar delivered the judgment while deciding a batch of appeals arising out of a matrimonial dispute pending before the Family Court in Delhi.
ALSO READ: Taking Photos of a Woman Doesn’t Always Mean Stalking, Rules Himachal Pradesh High Court
Background of the Case
The couple, married in 2002 and parents of two children, entered into conflict when the wife filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty and adultery. She impleaded the alleged paramour (R-2) as a co-respondent, alleging that her husband and R-2 maintained an illicit relationship and stayed together at multiple hotels and guest houses since January 2020.
The Family Court, in April 2025, allowed the wife’s plea for preservation and production of the husband’s CDRs, tower location data, and certain financial records, while rejecting some demands as a “fishing enquiry.” Both the husband and the alleged paramour challenged this order before the High Court.
Arguments by the Parties
Arguments of R-2 (Alleged Paramour):
- R-2 argued that her impleadment in the matrimonial case was misconceived and unnecessary, as the wife had not provided specific particulars of adultery, such as date, time, place, or act of sexual intercourse.
- She contended that directing disclosure of her tower location data amounted to an intrusion into her fundamental right to privacy under Article 21, citing K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India.
- According to her, the wife’s application was a roving and fishing enquiry into her private life without any precise pleadings.
- She maintained that being arrayed as a party exposed her to stigma and harassment, and if required, she could have been summoned as a witness instead of a respondent.
Arguments of the Wife:
- The wife argued that direct evidence of adultery is rare, and therefore, circumstantial evidence such as coordinated travel, hotel stays, and frequent communication must be given due weight.
- She claimed that production of CDRs, tower location, and financial records was essential for proving adultery and assessing alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
- The wife pointed out that her petition contained specific details of hotels, dates of stays, and travel records, and therefore her requests could not be dismissed as speculative.
- She also argued that privacy concerns can be addressed through confidentiality safeguards such as sealed covers and court-supervised inspection.
Arguments of the Husband:
- The husband contended that the wife had not established a prima facie case of adultery, since no specific incident or direct evidence was pleaded.
- He admitted frequent communication with R-2 but explained that it was purely professional, necessitated by his work with U.S.-based clients across time zones.
- He opposed disclosure of his bank, credit card, and investment records, arguing that such documents were irrelevant at this stage and amounted to a fishing enquiry.
- The husband stressed that disclosure of his financial and telecom records could compromise sensitive international business dealings and cause prejudice to his professional standing.
- He pointed out that the wife’s application for interim maintenance had already been disposed of, making her fresh demands for financial disclosures unnecessary.
Observations by the High Court
The Court ruled that in divorce cases based on adultery, impleading the alleged paramour is not optional but necessary and proper. This requirement flows from the principles of natural justice, as allegations of adultery carry serious stigma, and therefore, the alleged participant must be given a right of hearing before any finding is recorded against them.
The Court held that call detail records (CDRs) and tower location data are neutral business records maintained by telecom providers, and such information can provide corroborative circumstantial evidence in adultery cases. It clarified that ordering disclosure of CDRs and tower data is not a roving or fishing inquiry, but is directly connected to the pleadings. Citing Sharda v. Dharmpal (2003), the Bench reaffirmed that limited incursions into privacy are permissible in matrimonial disputes if necessary to discover the truth.
“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,”
the Court observed.
While recognising informational privacy as a fundamental right under K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the Court stressed the importance of proportionality. It directed that disclosure of CDRs and tower data must be confined to the specific period pleaded and should be produced in sealed cover with confidentiality safeguards, thereby balancing the right to privacy with the right to a fair trial.
The Court upheld the direction requiring the husband to produce bank statements, credit card records, UPI transactions, and ESOP details, as these were relevant to assessing maintenance and alimony claims. It further directed disclosure of hotel booking records from 2021–2022, where the husband and R-2 were alleged to have stayed together. However, the Court rejected the wife’s requests for WhatsApp chats, Microsoft Teams logs, and leave records, holding that such demands were speculative and amounted to fishing enquiries.
Final Directions:
The Court ordered:
- Production of the husband’s CDRs and tower location data, and that of R-2, from January 2020 onwards, in sealed cover.
- Disclosure of specified financial documents of the husband.
- Production of hotel booking and travel records relevant to the wife’s adultery allegations.
Case Title:
X vs Y
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 251/2025 and CM APPL. 50033/2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Stalking
