Wife Suspecting Cheating? Delhi HC Says She Can Access Husband’s CDRs & Location Data
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has held that a wife alleging adultery can seek her husband’s call detail records (CDRs) as well as his tower location data, along with the tower records of the alleged paramour, to substantiate her case.
A Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, “Where the wife is seeking specific information regarding her husband’s stay during a particular period at a particular hotel, it cannot be said that she is indulging in any roving or fishing inquiry.”
In its detailed 32-page judgment, the Court clarified that ordering the disclosure of CDRs and tower data was “not a speculative fishing exercise, but one directly tied to the pleadings.
The High Court was dealing with appeals filed by the husband and his alleged paramour, challenging a Family Court order passed in April this year. The Family Court had allowed the wife’s application seeking preservation and disclosure of the husband’s CDRs and tower location data, as well as tower records of the alleged paramour, holding that the material was essential to test the charge of adultery.
The couple married in October 2002 in New Delhi according to Hindu rites, and have two children who currently live with the wife. The matrimonial dispute arose after the wife filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty and adultery. In her petition, she impleaded R-2 as co-respondent, alleging that her husband and R-2 maintained an illicit relationship and had travelled or stayed together at multiple hotels, guest houses, and locations since January 2020.
The alleged paramour sought deletion from proceedings, arguing that her involvement was unnecessary and unfair. She maintained that the wife’s petition did not allege any act of sexual intimacy, and only referred to professional or public meetings. Being impeached without precise particulars, she said, amounted to a humiliating inquiry that exposed her to stigma and harassment. If her testimony was needed, she argued, she could be called as a witness instead of being arrayed as a respondent.
Her plea further contended that the Family Court’s order violated her fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, and that the wife’s application was nothing more than a fishing enquiry into her personal life, lacking details of time, place, or specific incidents.
The husband also challenged the Family Court’s order, objecting to the direction for disclosure of his confidential financial records in addition to the CDRs and tower data. He argued that the wife had not established a prima facie case of adultery or concealment of assets. The order, he said, was arbitrary since no specific date, place, or incident of alleged adultery was pleaded.
While admitting that he frequently communicated with R-2, the husband explained that the interaction was purely professional, necessitated by his work with clients in the United States across time zones. The Family Court, he argued, had failed to appreciate this context and had wrongly drawn adverse inferences from routine communication.
After hearing submissions from both sides, the High Court at the outset upheld the impleadment of the husband’s alleged paramour, observing that she was a “necessary and proper party in adultery divorce petitions” and that such impleadment stemmed from “principles of natural justice as consistently recognised by judicial precedent.”
The Court noted that the wife had pleaded specific facts about her husband’s alleged adulterous relationship with R-2, backed by particulars of travel and frequent communication since January 2020. Since the wife could not be expected to bring direct evidence of adultery, the Bench held that circumstantial material must be given due weight.
“Therefore, the direction to disclose CDRs and tower location data is not a speculative fishing exercise, but one directly tied to the pleadings. Being neutral business records maintained by telecom operators, such data can provide corroborative circumstantial evidence, without trenching upon the substantive content of private communications,” the Court observed.
Placing reliance on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sharda v. Dharmpal, the Bench reiterated that limited incursions into personal privacy are permissible in matrimonial disputes if necessary to reach the truth
“In matrimonial disputes where adultery is alleged, courts have consistently held that proof may often be circumstantial, and that evidence of association, stay at hotels, or patterns of communication may constitute relevant circumstances. 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,” the Court said.
Upholding the Family Court’s directions, the bench concluded that disclosure of the husband’s CDRs and tower location data, and the tower location records of R-2, from January 2020 onwards, was justified in law and on the facts. It, however, directed that such disclosures be confined to the period specifically pleaded and produced in sealed cover, subject to confidentiality safeguards.
Case Title: X vs Y
Judgment Date: 29 August 2025
Bench: Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan