In a matter at hand, A woman had petitioned for a divorce from her spouse due to his abuse and adultery. It was her husband’s fault that she and another woman, together with their daughter, checked into a hotel in Jaipur. The CDR and hotel records are required to support the adultery claim.
The spouse argued that the trial court’s instructions violated both his friend’s and his right to privacy. He stated that if the instructions are followed, it will seriously damage not just the reputation and character of the woman he just so happened to meet at the hotel, but also the legitimacy and paternity of the woman’s little child.
Analysis of Court Order
According to Justice Rekha Palli of the Delhi High Court’s single bench, the right to privacy is not unrestricted but is subject to reasonable limitations if those limitations serve the greater good. The Delhi High Court ruled that requesting information about hotel reservations and call detail records (CDR) to support an adultery claim does not constitute a violation of a person’s right to privacy.
A man’s appeal was denied by the court after he cited his right to privacy and disputed a family court order requesting hotel data from a place where he lodged with his “friend.”Further, it states that because adultery is a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, it would not serve the public interest for the court to intervene based on the right to privacy on behalf of a married man who is accused of engaging in extramarital affairs while his marriage was still active.
When upholding a family court order that permitted a woman’s motion to request the records of a hotel room where her husband reportedly stayed with another woman, Justice Palli made the following. The CDR of the two numbers that belonged to the husband was also requested by the court. The Court stated that it is uncommon to have access to direct evidence of infidelity. As a result, the wife has not only established a presumptive case but also that the material she is seeking would unquestionably be pertinent to establishing the adultery claim.
Justice Palli notes that the respondent’s request for documents relating to her legally married husband, whom she has cause to suspect is engaging in adultery with a specific woman in a specific room, is not the same as asking for information on any strangers staying at the hotel. He continued by saying that the court must intervene when a wife asks for a judge’s assistance in obtaining proof that would significantly support her claim that her husband committed adultery. This would be in line with Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, which grants the Court the discretion to accept evidence that might not be relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act. As a result, the Court rejected the husband’s appeal and confirmed the family court’s decision.