It is undoubtedly a matter of immense significance with far reaching implications directly concerned with the right to privacy that the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled SA vs MA in Civil Appeal No. 400 of 2024 that was pronounced just recently on July 2, 2026 has affirmed and refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court ruling titled Sachin Arora vs Manju Arora cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2023:DHC:3197 that was reserved on 3.5.2003 and then pronounced finally on 10.5.2023 by which wife was permitted to summon hotel records and the call details records (CDR) of her husband in matrimonial proceedings to substantiate allegations of adultery. To put it differently, the Apex Court Bench concurred with the May 10, 2023 judgment of the Delhi High Court which had rejected a husband’s challenge to a family court order directing production of records from a Jaipur hotel where he was alleged to have stayed with another woman, as well as the CDRs of two mobile numbers belonging to him. It needs to be noticed that on a partial court working day, the Apex Court Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Manmohan and Hon’ble Mr Justice K Vinod Chandran dismissed the appeal that had been filed by the husband declining to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Family Court and the Delhi High Court pertaining to the production of the hotel records and call detail records for consideration by the Family Court.
To put things in perspective, we must note that the Delhi High Court in its judgment authored by former Judge – Hon’ble Ms Justice Rekha Palli in para 4 while elaborating on the factual matrix states that, “The marriage between the parties, having been solemnized on 04.12.1998 according to Hindu rites and rituals, they were on 15.07.2000, blessed with a daughter. Even while both the parties continued to reside in the same shared household, disputes arose between them and the respondent served a legal notice upon the petitioner on 24.05.2022 wherein she besides alleging cruelty and domestic violence on the part of the petitioner, stated that he had indulged in adulterous acts with a woman outside their marriage. The respondent thereafter filed a petition seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of adultery and cruelty on Neutral Citation No. 2023:DHC:3197 the part of the petitioner. It was the respondent’s specific case that the petitioner between 29.04.2022 to 01.05.2022 was staying with a lady along with her daughter in the same room at Hotel Fairmont, Jaipur.”
Be it noted, the Delhi High Court Bench notes in para 8 that, “After considering the rival submissions of the parties, the learned Family Court, passed the impugned order dated 14.12.2022 directing Hotel Fairmont, Jaipur to preserve the documents relating to the reservation details, payment details and ID proofs of room no.219 for the period between 29.04.2022 to 01.05.2022 and send the same to the Court in a sealed cover. A direction was also issued to the concerned mobile agencies to preserve all the CDRs in respect of mobile nos.9811484848 and 9310484848 for the period between 01.06.2021 to 30.06.2022 and send the same to the Court in a sealed cover. While passing the impugned order, the learned Family Court opined that the documents being sought by the respondent were necessary to prove the charges of adultery and cruelty levelled against the petitioner by her.”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 9 that, “Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition. On 17.01.2023, when the petition was taken up for preliminary consideration, this Court, while issuing notice in the petition, had stayed the operation of the impugned orders to the extent it directed Hotel Fairmont to send the reservation details of Room No. 219 and the mobile agencies to send the CDRs to the learned Family Court. The Court, however directed the aforesaid hotel as also the concerned mobile agencies to ensure that records in terms of the impugned orders are preserved. Consequently, the records in terms of the impugned orders have been duly preserved in accordance with this Court’s directions.”
Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 42 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “Before I conclude, I may also refer to the decisions in Surjit Singh (supra) and Vishwas Shetty (supra) but find that the same are not applicable Neutral Citation No. 2023:DHC:3197 to the facts of the present case. In Surjit Singh (supra), the Punjab and Haryana High Court, after noting that the virginity of wife was not in issue in the matter, declined to interfere with the Family Court’s order rejecting the husband’s prayer to get his wife medically examined to prove her virginity by holding that this would amount to holding a roving inquiry. In the present case, the respondent has not only raised a specific plea of adultery against the petitioner but even otherwise, she has sought only specific information regarding the details of the room where her husband was staying during a specific period as also his call records alone. The decision in Surjit Singh (supra) would therefore not be applicable to the facts of the present case. In Vishwas Shetty (supra), the Court was dealing with the husband’s prayer seeking call details not only of his wife but also of her alleged paramour. The Court rejected the prayer seeking call details of the wife’s paramour by holding that the same would amount to infringing his right to privacy. In the present case, the respondent has admittedly not sought any details regarding the petitioner’s friend or her daughter and therefore this decision would also not forward the case of the petitioner in any manner.”
It also merits noting that the Delhi High Court held unmistakably in no uncertain terms that the right to privacy is not absolute and must be balanced against a spouse’s right to prove allegations in matrimonial proceedings. It cannot be lost sight of that since the wife had no other effective means to establish her claim of adultery, it upheld the Family Court’s direction to summon the husband’s hotel records and CDRs in a sealed cover to protect confidentiality while enabling adjudication. The Court also held that while the right to privacy is a fundamental right, it is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions when required in the larger public interest.
Most forthrightly, the Delhi High Court had pointed out that, “The Hindu Marriage Act specifically recognizes adultery as a ground for divorce and therefore, it would not at all be in public interest that the Court should on the ground of right to privacy, come to the aid of a married man who, during the subsistence of his marriage, is alleged to have indulged in sexual relationships outside his marriage.”
We need to note that this leading case stemmed from a divorce petition that had been filed by a woman alleging cruelty and adultery by her husband. According to the version of the wife, her husband had stayed at a hotel in Jaipur with another woman and her daughter. She sought production of the hotel’s booking records and the husband’s call detail records, arguing vehemently that they were necessary to establish the allegation of adultery.
The husband opposed the plea of wife contending strongly that summoning such records would infringe not only his right to privacy but also that of the other woman. He argued that disclosure of the records would cast aspersions on her reputation and even raise questions pertaining to the legitimacy and paternity of her minor daughter. It is worth noting that the Delhi High Court most commendably rejected this specious contention and held in no uncertain terms that direct evidence of adultery is rarely available and matrimonial courts often have to rely on circumstantial evidence.
It also held that the hotel’s reservation records, payment details and identity documents of the occupants would help determine whether the husband had indeed stayed in the same room with a woman other than his wife. Similarly, the call records could indicate whether the frequency and duration of conversations between them were consistent with the wife’s allegations. The Delhi High Court also rejected the husband’s argument that the family court had permitted a roving or fishing enquiry.
It said explicitly that, “It is not as if the respondent 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.” It was also observed further that when a spouse seeks court’s assistance in procuring evidence that could materially establish adultery, the court ought to facilitate such evidence. It also relied on Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, which permits family courts to receive evidence that may otherwise not be admissible under the Evidence Act.
All told, we now thus see that even the Apex Court has affirmed that view of Delhi High Court and Family Court effectively upholding the Family Court’s direction to summon the hotel records and call detailed records. It would be instructive to note that the Apex Court in this leading case hastens to add in the beginning itself in para 1 that, “Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that no interference is called for with the impugned judgment.” It would be worthwhile to note that the Apex Court concludes by directing and holding in para 2 that, “Accordingly, the Civil Appeal along with pending applications, is dismissed.” It is thus made indubitably clear by the Apex Court that directing production of hotel booking records and call data to prove adultery does not violate the right to privacy as affirmed by the Delhi High Court and Family Court earlier also! No denying or disputing it!
Author Bio
