Supreme Court Upholds High Court Ruling on Adultery Evidence in Divorce Cases

The Supreme Court has affirmed the Delhi High Court's ruling from July 2, which stated that requesting hotel booking records and call detail records (CDR) to substantiate allegations of adultery does not violate the right to privacy. The bench, comprising Justices Manmohan and K. Vinod Chandran, upheld the High Court's decision made on May 10, 2023. The High Court had dismissed a husband's challenge against a family court order that mandated the retrieval of records from a Jaipur hotel, where he was accused of staying with another woman.

The High Court, led by former Justice Rekha Palli, noted that while the right to privacy is a fundamental right, it is not absolute and can be reasonably restricted in the interest of the public. The court emphasized that the Hindu Marriage Act recognizes adultery as grounds for divorce, indicating that it would not serve the public interest to protect the privacy of a married individual accused of engaging in sexual relations with another woman during the marriage.

This legal dispute originated from a divorce petition filed by a woman who accused her husband of cruelty and adultery. She claimed that her husband had stayed at a hotel in Jaipur with another woman and her daughter. The wife sought the hotel booking records and her husband's call detail records, arguing that these were essential to prove the allegations of adultery. The husband opposed this request, asserting that obtaining such records would infringe upon both his and the other woman's right to privacy, potentially damaging her reputation and raising questions about the legitimacy of her minor daughter.

The High Court dismissed the husband's arguments, stating that direct evidence of adultery is rarely available, and family courts often rely on circumstantial evidence. The court explained that hotel reservation records, payment details, and identification documents of guests could help determine whether the husband indeed stayed in the same room with another woman. Similarly, call records could reveal the frequency and duration of their communications, aligning with the wife's allegations. The High Court also rejected the husband's claim that the family court had permitted an unwarranted investigation.

The High Court clarified that the wife was not seeking information about a stranger but was requesting records related to her legally married husband, whom she had reason to believe was committing adultery with a specific woman. Justice Palli further stated that when a spouse seeks the court's assistance in gathering evidence of adultery, the court should facilitate the collection of such evidence. The court relied on Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, which allows family courts to accept evidence that may not be admissible under the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court has now validated this stance, endorsing the family court's directive to obtain hotel and call detail records.