Court affirmed the necessity of impleading an alleged paramour in divorce proceedings for fair adjudication, emphasizing evidentiary disclosures must balance privacy rights with the right to prove adultery.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. The present batch of four connected Appeals assails different parts of the common interlocutory Order passed on 29.04.2025 [hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Order"] by the Family Court. All four Appeals arise out of the same matrimonial proceedings, being HMA No. 479/2023, titled Smita Shrivastava v. Sumit Verma & Anr., pending before the Family Court, and involve the same set of parties. The Impugned Order, inter alia, addressed:

i. the impleadment of the alleged paramour as a party to the proceedings;

ii. the production of certain documents under Order XI Rule 14 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as "CPC"]; and

iii. the disclosure of Call Detail Records [hereinafter referred to as "CDRs"] and tower location details under Section 151 of the CPC.

2. Since all four Appeals arise out of the same lis and turn upon overlapping issues, they are being, with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, disposed of by this consolidated judgment.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to by their status they held before the Family Court. The Appellant in MAT.APP.(F.C.) 285/2025 is the Wife/Petitioner [hereinafter referred to as "Wife"]; the Appellant in MAT.APP.(F.C.) 275/2025 is the Husband/Respondent No.1 [hereinafter referred to as "Husband"]; and the Appellant in MAT.APP.(F.C.) 251/2025 & 256/2025 is the impleaded Respondent No.2, alleged to be the paramour of the Husband [hereinafter referred to as "R-2"].

Appeals and Reliefs

i. MAT.APP.(FC) 251/2025 (R2’s Appeal – Impleadment): Seeks setting aside of the Impugned Order to the extent it rejects her application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC (and invoking Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC) for striking off her name from the array of parties in HMA 479/2023.

ii. MAT.APP.(FC) 256/2025 (R2’s Appeal – Tower Location/ CDRs): Challenge is to the Order allowing the Wife's application under Section 151 of the CPC directing preservation and production of tower location of the mobile phone allegedly used by R-2, along with CDRs/tower location of the Husband for the period January, 2020 till date.

iii. MAT.APP.(FC) 285/2025 (Wife’s Appeal): Challenges the disallowance of the Wife's prayer under Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC for production of documents at serial nos. (ix), (xi), and (xiv) to (xxiv) of her application, and seeks a direction to the Husband to produce all documents enumerated therein.

iv. MAT.APP.(FC) 275/2025 (Husband’s Appeal): Assails the Impugned Order whereby the Family Court allowed the Wife's application under Section 151 of the CPC application for CDRs/tower location, and partly allowed the Wife's application under Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC for production of certain documents, directing production of some financial records, while rejecting others as fishing/roving.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

4. The marriage between the Wife and the Husband was solemnised on 10.10.2002 at New Delhi, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of the said wedlock, two children were born on 31.12.2004 and 22.12.2010 respectively, both of whom presently reside with the Wife. Matrimonial discord subsequently arose, which led the wife to institute a petition under Section 13(1)(i) & (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [hereinafter referred to as "HMA"], registered as HMA No. 479/2023, seeking dissolution of marriage on grounds of adultery and cruelty. In suppor