Court Can Seek Mobile Location Of Spouse To Ascertain Adultery In Matrimonial Disputes: Delhi High Court

A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed,

“In matrimonial disputes where adultery is alleged, courts have consistently held that proof may often be circumstantial, and that evidence of association, stay at hotels, or patterns of communication may constitute relevant circumstances. 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. Such material cannot, therefore, be dismissed as a roving enquiry; it is directly relevant to the issue in controversy.”

However, it cautioned that to strike a balance between the aggrieved spouse's right to fair adjudication and the privacy interests of the other spouse and the paramour,

“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.”

The Court was dealing with the appeal preferred by an alleged paramour, aggrieved by family court order directing production of her and an aggrieved wife's husband's CDRs including tower location of mobile phones.

The contention was that such an order infringes the fundamental right to privacy and amounts to a fishing enquiry, divorced from the pleadings.

The High Court at the outset noted that the wife was only trying to seek production of evidence which she reasonably believes will prove her charge of adultery and the direction in the case at hand was confined to the period from January, 2020 to till date.

Therefore, it held that the direction to disclose CDRs and tower location data is not a speculative fishing exercise, but one directly tied to the pleadings.

It relied on Sharda v. Dharmpal (2003) where the Supreme Court upheld limited incursions into personal privacy in matrimonial disputes, holding that such directions are permissible if necessary to arrive at the truth.

The Court also highlighted that statutory provisions like Section 151 CPC preserve the inherent powers of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice.

In matrimonial proceedings, it said, such powers stand enlarged by Section 14 of the Family Courts Act. “The legislative intent is clear — the Family Court, unlike an ordinary Civil Court, is not straitjacketed by technical rules of evidence, and is empowered to adopt procedures to ascertain the truth.”

Similarly, Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act empowers the Court to put questions in any form, at any time, to any witness or party, in order to discover or obtain proof of relevant facts.

“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 said.

At the same time, it added, Right to Privacy, recognised as a Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, cannot be disregarded.

“The collection and disclosure of CDRs and tower location data implicates informational privacy, since such records reveal not only communication patterns but also physical movements. The Family Court, while empowered to summon evidence must therefore, ensure that its directions are proportionate and justified by a legitimate aim,” it said.

Appearance: Mr. Prateek Chaudhary, Adv. for Appellant; Prashant Ghai, Adv for R1. Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv for R2.

Case title: Tanvi Chaturvedi v. Smita Shrivastava & Anr

Case no.: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 251/2025

Click here to read order