SC upholds Delhi HC order rejecting adulterous man’s claim to right to privacy in divorce case

The Supreme Court has upheld the Delhi High Court ruling that a wife can seek the assistance of the court to collect evidence such as call detail records (CDRs) and hotel booking details of her husband to substantiate her charge of adultery levelled against him.

A bench of Justices Manmohan and K Vinod Chandran dismissed the appeal filed by the estranged husband against the high court order of May 10, 2023.

“Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that no interference is called for with the impugned judgment,” it said while dismissing the appeal on Thursday.

On May 10, 2023, the high court said law recognises adultery as a ground for divorce and it will not be in public interest for the court to come to the aid of a married man, who indulged in alleged sexual relationships outside the wedlock, on the premise of right to privacy.

The high court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision holding that though the right to privacy is a constitutionally protected right, it is not an absolute right and it has to be necessarily subject to reasonable restrictions, especially when the restrictions are in the public interest.

The high court made the observations while dismissing a man’s plea challenging a family court’s December 14, 2022, order to preserve the documents related to reservation, payment details and ID proofs of a particular room in a hotel for the period between April 29 and May 1 last year and send it to the court in a sealed cover.

It further said that when a wife seeks court’s help for procuring evidence which would go a long way to prove adultery on the part of her husband, court must step in.

“This would be in consonance with Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, which gives a leeway to the court to consider evidence which may be not admissible or relevant under the Indian Evidence Act,” the high court had said.

Section 14 of the Family Courts Act states that the family court may receive as evidence any report, statement, documents, information or any other matter which it thinks may assist the court to deal with a dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act.

The high court was examining the question as to whether the husband can claim right to privacy vis-à-vis the wife’s prayer to seek assistance of the court for production of records to substantiate her charge of adultery levelled against the husband in her petition for divorce.

“They can therefore be no gainsaying that direct evidence of adultery can rarely be available. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the respondent (wife) has not only been able to make out a prima facie case against the petitioner (husband) but also that the information which she is seeking would definitely be relevant for proving the charge of adultery which she has levelled against her husband,” the high court had said.

It said payment and reservation details, along with the ID proof of the occupants of the room will help in figuring out whether the man was staying with a woman other than his wife.

“Similarly, the call details will surely be indicative of the fact as to whether the conversations of the petitioner with the lady were of such duration and frequency as is not expected between colleagues. The respondent is seeking to prove the charge of adultery against the petitioner and therefore, it cannot be said that this information would not be relevant,” the high court said.

It said the man who is claiming right to privacy continues to be in a legally valid marital relationship with his wife, while having a grown-up daughter out of wedlock.

“The Hindu Marriage Act specifically recognises 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,” it had said.

The high court further said the man’s claim is based solely on the right to privacy, which is not an absolute right, and on the other hand, the woman’s prayer is based not only on morality but also on specific rights granted under the Hindu Marriage Act and the Family Courts Act.

It said the family court’s order only pertained to the production of records and did not in any manner deal with the question as to whether the record would in itself be sufficient to prove the charge of adultery against the man.

The family court was dealing with the divorce petition of the wife who alleged that her husband was involved in an illegitimate relationship with another woman and has a daughter from that relation.

The wife also alleged before the family court that the man and the other woman had stayed in a hotel. She argued that the hotel and call detail records were necessary to establish her contention.