Disclosing Details Of Matrimonial Litigation To Defend Collateral Civil & Criminal Litigation Not Barred U/S 22 HMA: Delhi High Court

A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar thus refused to restrain the Appellant's wife, her brother and employer from disclosing details of the matrimonial litigation and related custody proceedings in collateral civil and criminal litigations, instituted by the Appellant himself.

It observed,

“The mischief sought to be curbed by the provision is the unnecessary and potentially prejudicial dissemination of sensitive matrimonial details in the public domain. However, the prohibition under Section 22 of the HMA is not absolute in scope. What is barred is publication in the sense of making such material publicly accessible through print or other media. The disclosures allegedly made by the Respondent, her brother, and employer, as noted by the learned Family Court, were not made to the public or in the press, but in specific legal and administrative contexts — in response to complaints initiated by the Appellant himself.”

The mandate of Section 22 is twofold — first, that all proceedings under the Act must be held in camera, and second, that printing or publishing any matter relating to such proceedings is prohibited, except with the prior permission of the Court, and only in respect of judgments of the High Courts or the Supreme Court.

Appellant argued that the Respondent, her brother, and her employer had disclosed confidential details relating to the ongoing matrimonial proceedings and related custody disputes to third parties, including institutions such as police officials and schools attended by their minor child, thereby infringing the mandate.

Significant to note that the Family court found that Section 22 was not breached as the disclosures in question constituted a legitimate exercise of the trio's right to defence and the same had neither been printed nor published in the public domain.

Before the High Court, Appellant contended that such disclosures, though not made in the public media, amounted to publication “in relation to the proceedings” within the meaning of the provision.

Unconvinced, the High Court said,

“the learned Family Court rightly held that the Respondent and others were not engaging in prohibited publication, but were availing their legal right to defend themselves in collateral proceedings, where reference to the matrimonial litigation was material and relevant.…To hold otherwise would amount to allowing Section 22 of the HMA to be used as a shield to suppress material facts in related legal proceedings, thereby defeating the ends of justice.”

As such, the appeal was dismissed.

Appearance: Appellant in-person

Case title: PJ v. PJ

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 911

Case no.: MAT. APP. (F.C.) 264/2025

Click here to read order