Seeking CCTV Footage, Call Records In A Matrimonial Discord Alleging Adultery Does Not Violate Right To Privacy: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court in a landmark judgment has held that seeking CCTV footage, call records and hotel booking details alleging adultery in a matrimonial discord, does not impinge on the fundamental right to privacy as the right to public morality would advance is such matters. In the matter, a divorce was sought on the grounds of cruelty and adultery, where the Court's intervention was called upon to establish cogent evidence to prove adultery. The Court held -
"...At the cost of repetition, I may observe that it is not as if the respondent is seeking information about any stranger staying in the hotel, her plea is only for records pertaining to her legally wedded husband, who she has a reason to believe is indulging in adultery with a particular lady in a particular room".
A bench of Justice Rekha Palli while reiterating that the right of privacy is not an absolute right, observed, “…The petitioner’s claim is based solely on the right to privacy which, as held in K.S. Puttuswamy vs. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 and Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39 is not an absolute right; on the other hand, the respondent’s prayer is based not only on morality but also on specific rights granted under the Hindu Marriage Act and the Family Courts Act. I, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the respondent’s right must prevail and therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The learned Family Court by way of the impugned orders has sought records which pertain only to the respondent’s husband and not to his friend or her daughter. There is, therefore, no question of their right of privacy being violated in any manner”.
Advocate Preeti Singh appeared for the petitioner-husband while Advocate Prabhjit Jauhar appeared for the respondent-wife.
In a Hindu matrimonial discord matter, where a wife sought a divorce on the basis of cruelty and adultery, and further alleged that her husband had illicit affair with his friend, the respondent-wife sought CCTV footage of the Hotel (Hotel Fairmont) where the husband and his friend along with her daughter allegedly stayed. Call detailed records (CDRs) were further sought by the wife. Pursuant to an application before the Family Court for the same, the Court then passed the impugned order directing Hotel Fairmont, Jaipur to preserve the documents relating to the reservation details, payment details and ID proofs of room no.219 (where the petitioner allegedly stayed with his friend) for the period between April 29, 2022 to May 1, 2022 and send the same to the Court in a sealed cover. It had also opined that the documents being sought by the respondent were necessary to prove the charges of adultery and cruelty levelled against the petitioner.
It was the contention of the respondent-wife that the Family Court was well aware of the fact that the reservation details and call detail records were necessary for adjudication of the lis pending between the parties. The summoning of the reservation details would therefore be necessary to establish the charge of adultery. Furthermore, the call detail records would also be relevant to prove the proximity of the relationship and also determining the degree of closeness between them.
While the petitioner-husband argued inter alia that the Family Court had failed to appreciate that no prima facie case of adultery against the petitioner was made out. Further that no useful purpose would be achieved by calling for the CDRs as same cannot establish cruelty and adultery in any manner. The petitioner then underlined the right to privacy that would be breached upon the retrieval of CCTV footage and call records.
The Court thus had three questions to adjudicate upon:
- whether the respondent has been able to make out a prima facie case and the information sought by her can be said to be relevant for determining the lis between the parties;
- whether the information sought by the respondent would amount to infringement of the right to privacy of the petitioner or of his lady friend or that of the minor child and in the event the answer to this question is in the affirmative;
- whether this right must give way to the respondent’s right to fair trial by seeking to procure evidence which would fall within the ambit of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act.
While answering the first in negation, the bench held, “It is an admitted position that the respondent has not only placed a number of photographs showing the petitioner in close proximity with his lady friend but has also provided the details of the room and the dates on which according to her, her legally wedded husband was staying with the lady. Even though, learned counsel for the petitioner is right in urging by relying on Jayantibhai Shravanbhai Rajput v. Minor Nayra Jayantibhai Rajput Crl Rev. Appl. No.1213/2022 Gujarat High Court and Veeraman v. Shaitan Bai FA No.355/2004 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that the photographs produced by the respondent where the petitioner is seen sitting in public area with his friend, do not by themselves establish adultery, it cannot be said that they do not even point towards a prima facie case”.
The bench further placed reliance on the contradicting statements of the petitioner regarding the presence of his lady friend in the hotel.
Then the bench further was of the opinion that although it is not permissible for a party to lean on the Court to collect evidence to further establish cogent evidence, and while answering the second question, it noted, “There can be no quarrel with the well settled principle that generally it is for the party approaching the Court to lead evidence in support of its case but what needs to be appreciated is that when the Court is dealing with this special law relating to family matters, Section 14 of the Family Courts Act is carved in a slightly different manner giving very wide powers to the Family Court in matters of receiving evidence. It is therefore, open for the Family Court to receive any evidence which may assist the Court to effectively deal with the dispute irrespective of whether the said evidence is relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act”.
The bench then deliberated over a conflict between the fundamental rights of two parties, placed reliance on Mr. X v. Hospital Z (1998) 8 SCC 296, where upon disclosing vital information to the appellant Ms. Y that Mr. X was HIV(+), the marriage stood canceled. It was held in the matter that,
“Since ‘right to life’ includes right to lead a healthy life so as to enjoy all the faculties of the human body in their prime condition, the respondents, by their disclosure that the appellant was HIV(+), cannot be said to have, in any way, either violated the rule of confidentiality or the right of privacy. Moreover, where there is a clash of two Fundamental Rights, as in the instant case, namely, the appellant's right to privacy as part of right to life and Ms „Y’s right to lead a healthy life which is her Fundamental Right under Article 21, the right which would advance the public morality or public interest, would alone be enforced through the process of court, for the reason that moral considerations cannot be kept at bay and the Judges are not expected to sit as mute structures of clay in the hall known as the courtroom, but have to be sensitive, in the sense that they must keep their fingers firmly upon the pulse of the accepted morality of the day’”.
While citing Vishwas Shetty vs. Preethi K Rao and Anr. W.P.(C) 13165/2019, the bench further held that since the respondent had not sought any details regarding the petitioner’s friend or her daughter, therefore the decision in Vishwas Shetty would also not forward the case of the petitioner in any manner.
The bench accordingly dismissed the petition. Consequently, all interim orders stood vacated.
