In Tanvi Chaturvedi v. Smita Shrivastava & Anr., Delhi HC was dealing with a batch of four connected matrimonial appeals arising out of the same proceedings where the wife sought divorce on grounds of adultery and cruelty. The Family Court had passed a common order on 29.04.2025 directing impleadment of the alleged paramour (R-2), disclosure of call detail records (CDRs) and tower location data of the husband and R-2, and partial production of the husband’s financial documents.

The marriage between the husband and wife was solemnised in 2002, with two children born in 2004 and 2010. The wife alleged that the husband had an adulterous relationship with R-2, involving stays at hotels and frequent communications, and accordingly impleaded her as co-respondent. Three interlocutory applications were filed, first by R-2 for deletion of her name, second by the wife for CDRs/tower location data, and third for discovery of financial and travel documents.

High Court first examined whether impleadment of the alleged paramour (R-2) was justified. It noted that in adultery cases, impleadment of the alleged adulterer/adulteress is not merely procedural but a substantive safeguard flowing from principles of natural justice.

Rejecting R-2’s argument that absence of the phrase “sexual intercourse” in the pleadings rendered her impleadment invalid, Court observedm “Once the foundation of adultery is pleaded, the law does not mandate ritualistic reproduction of the precise words. What is required is that the pleadings, taken together, convey with reasonable clarity the charge of adultery; the Wife’s petition satisfies that threshold”.

Turning to the issue of CDRs and tower location, Court held that Family Courts have wide powers u/s 151 CPC, Section 14 of Family Courts Act, and Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act to summon evidence necessary for effective adjudication. It stressed that “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”.

On balancing privacy concerns, Court recognised the Right to Privacy under Article 21, cautioning that disclosure of CDRs and location data implicates informational privacy. However, it found that such disclosure is permissible if proportionate, confined to a reasonable timeframe, and subject to confidentiality safeguards.

Court noted, “CDRs and tower location data, if appropriately circumscribed to a defined period, serve as corroborative material… Such material cannot, therefore, be dismissed as a roving enquiry; it is directly relevant to the issue in controversy”.

Court also relied on precedent, citing Sharda v. Dharmpal (2003), where the Supreme Court upheld limited incursions into personal privacy in matrimonial disputes. It further referred to Linda Constance Edwards v. William Edwards to emphasise that adultery is usually proved through circumstantial evidence, since “it is rare that the parties are surprised in direct act of adultery… adultery is to be inferred from circumstances which must indicate inclination, guilty intention and opportunity to commit adultery”.

Therefore, Court upheld the Family Court’s order directing production of the husband’s CDRs and tower location details of both husband and R-2 from January 2020 onwards, to be received in sealed cover with confidentiality safeguards. It concluded that this was not a speculative or fishing enquiry, but one directly tied to the pleadings and necessary for adjudication of the adultery charge.

Accordingly, Delhi HC dismissed R-2’s appeals challenging her impleadment and the disclosure orders and upheld the wife’s right to seek corroborative circumstantial evidence of adultery.