SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 1461

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rekha Palli, J.
Sachin Arora – Appellant
Versus
Manju Arora – Respondent
CM(M) 64 of 2023, CM APPL. 2082 of 2023 (stay) & CM APPL. 6247 of 2023 (vacation of stay)
Decided On : 10-05-2023

Advocates appeared:
Ms. Preeti Singh, Mr Sunklan Porwal, Ms. Saumya Dwivedi, Ks. Kmkum Mandhanya and Mr Rishabh Munjal, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr.Prabhjit Jauhar with Ms.Rosemary Raju, Ms.Ajunee Singh, Mr.Ranveer Talwar, Advocates, for the Respondent.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 14 - Right to privacy versus right to fair trial - In a divorce proceeding on grounds of adultery, respondent sought evidence including hotel records and call detail records; court upheld Family Court’s power to summon evidence necessary for adjudication, balancing privacy rights against public morality. (Paras 10, 34, 41)

(B) Adultery - Standards of proof - Adultery can rarely be proven directly; circumstantial evidence may establish a prima facie case that justifies the summoning of records. (Paras 32, 36)

Facts of the case:
Petition filed by husband to challenge Family Court's orders allowing the wife to access hotel booking records and call detail records to provide evidence of alleged adultery. Parties were married, with allegations of serious misconduct arising during legal disputes. (Paras 2, 3, 4)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondent sufficiently demonstrated a prima facie case of adultery that justified the need for evidence production under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act. (Paras 28, 38)

Issues: Whether the Family Court's orders infringe upon the petitioner's right to privacy; and whether the wife established a prima facie case for adultery.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to privacy is not absolute and may be curtailed when requisite for a fair trial; hence, the production of evidence must serve public interest. (Paras 39, 40)

Result: Petition dismissed; Family Court’s orders upheld.

Table of Content
1. privacy rights versus evidentiary needs (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. determining legality of evidence in family courts (Para 3 , 8 , 10 , 19 , 22)
3. refuting allegations of adultery (Para 7 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. public interest in marital fidelity (Para 18 , 20 , 21 , 31)
5. balancing privacy with fair trial rights (Para 30 , 37 , 41)
6. dismissal of the petition (Para 44)

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J.

JUDGMENT

1. The right of privacy claimed by the husband vis-a-vis the prayer of the wife to seek assistance of the Court for production of records to substantiate her charge of adultery levelled against the husband in her petition seeking divorce is the question before this Court.

2. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, preferred by the husband, who is the respondent in HMA No. 1724/2022, instituted by the wife, seeks to assail the orders dated 04.07.2022 and 14.12.2022 passed by the learned Family Court. Vide its order dated 04.07.2022, the learned Family Court allowed the application preferred by the respondent seeking preservation of the CCTV footage of Hotel Fairmont, Jaipur for the period between 29.04.2022 to 01.05.2022. However, after it was reported that CCTV footages were not preserved for more than 30 days and were therefore not available at that stage, the respondent moved an application under Order XVI of the Code of the Civil Procedure (hereinafter, CPC) seeking summoning of the record regarding room No. 219 of Hotel Fairmont Jaipur for the period between 29.04.2022 to 01.05.2022 as also the Call Detail Records (CDRs) of the petitioner's two mobile nos. 9811484848 and 9310484848 for the period between 01.06.2021 to 30.06.2022. This application has been allowed by the learned Family Court vide its impugned order dated 14.12.2022 and the record in terms of the application was directed to be sent to the Court in a sealed cover.

3. Before dealing with the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the brief factual matrix, as is necessary for adjudication of the present petition, may be noted.

4. The marriage between the parties, having been solemnized on 04.12.1998 according to Hindu rites and rituals, they were on 15.07.2000, blessed with a daughter. Even while both the parties continued to reside in the same shared household, disputes arose between them and the respondent served a legal notice upon the petitioner on 24.05.2022 wherein she besides alleging cruelty and domestic violence on the part of the petitioner, stated that he had indulged in adulterous acts with a woman outside their marriage. The respondent thereafter filed a petition seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of adultery and cruelty on the part of the petitioner. It was the respondent's specific case that, the petitioner between 29.04.2022 to 01.05.2022 was staying with a lady along with her daughter in the same room at Hotel Fairmont, Jaipur.

5. In order to substantiate her allegations of adultery against the petitioner, the respondent approached Hotel Fairmont, Jaipur with a request to provide her with the booking details of room no.219 between 29.04.2022 to 01.05.2022 where the respondent claims, the petitioner was residing with the lady whose particulars are not known to her, alongwith the identity proofs (ID) of persons staying therein as also the details of the mode of payment of the room rent. Upon the said request being denied by the hotel authorities, the respondent preferred an application before the learned Family Court seeking preservation of the CCTV footage of room no.219 by the hotel authority for the aforesaid period. The learned Family Court, while allowing the said application on 04.07.2022, granted liberty to the respondent to move a fresh application for summoning the CCTV footage, booking details and reservation records of room no.219, Hotel Fairmont.

6. The respondent then preferred an application before the learned Family

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top