Ms. Tanvi Chaturvedi v. Ms. Smita Shrivastava & Anr

Judgment reserved on: . 08 .2025

Judgment pronounced on: . 0 8 . 2025

+

MAT.AP.(F.C.) 251/2025 and CM APL. 503/2025

MS. TANVI CHATURVEDI

.Apelant

Through:

Mr. Pratek Chaudhary, Adv.

versus

MS. SMITA SHRIVASTAVA & ANR.

.Respondents

Through:

Mr. Prashant Ghai, Adv for R -

1.

Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv for R -

2.

+

MAT.AP.(F.C.) 285/2025 and CM APL. 4858 - 4859/2025

SMITA SHRIVASTAVA

.Apelant

Through:

Mr. Prashant Ghai, Adv.

versus

SUMIT VERMA & ANR.

.Respondents

Through:

Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv. for R -

1.

Mr. Pratek Chaudhary, Adv. for R - 2.

+

MAT.AP.(F.C.) 256/2025 and CM APL. 41978/2025

MS. TANVI CHATURVEDI

.Apelant

Through:

Mr. Pratek Chaudhary, Adv.

versus

MS. SMITA SHRIVASTAVA & ANR.

.Respondents

Through:

Mr. Prashant Ghai, Adv for R -

1.

Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv for R -

2.

MAT.AP .(F.C.) 251/2025 and conected maters

Page 2 of

+

MAT.AP.(F.C.) 275/2025 and CM APL. 4645 - 46456/2025

SUMIT VERMA

.Apelant

Through:

Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv.

versus

SMITA SRIVASTAVA AND ANR

.Respondents

Through:

Mr. Prashant Ghai, Adv. for R -

1.

Mr. Pratek Chaudhary, Adv. for R - 2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL , J.

¶1The present batch of four conected Apeals asails diferent parts of the comon interlocutory Order pased on 29.04.2025 [hereinafter referred to as —Impug ed Order"] by the Fa Al four A peals arise out of the same matrimonial procedings, 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 , adresed:

i. the impleadment of the aleged paramour as a party to the procedings;

i. the production of certain documents under Order XI Rule 14 C ode of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter refered to as —CPC"] ; and

MAT.AP .(F.C.) 251/2025 and conected maters

Page 3 of

i i. the disclosure of Cal Detail Records [hereinafter refered to as — CDRs "] and tower location details under Section 151 of the CPC.

¶2Since al four A peals arise out of the same lis and turn upon overlaping isues , they are being , with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties , disposed of by this consolidated judgment.

¶3For the sake of convenience, the parties shal be refered to by their status they held before the Family Court. The A pelant in MAT.AP.(F . C . ) 285/2025 is the W ife/ Petitioner [ he reinafter refered to as —Wife"] ; the A pelant in MAT.AP.(F . C . ) 275/2025 is the H usband/ R espondent No.1 [ herei nafter referred to as ; and the A pelant in MAT.AP.(F . C . ) 251/2025 & 256/2025 is the impleaded Respondent No.2, al leged to be the paramour of the Husband [ hereinafter refered to as —R - 2" ] . Apeals and Reliefs

i. MAT.APP.(FC) 251/2025 (R2's A peal œ I mpleadment): Seks seting aside of the Impugned Order to the extent it rejects her aplication under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC (and invoking Order VI Rule 1 of the CPC) for striking of her name from the aray of parties in HMA 479/2023.

i. MAT.APP.(FC) 256/2025 (R2's Apeal œ Tower Location/ CDRs): Chalenge is to the Order alowing the Wife's aplication under Section 151 of the CPC directing preservation and production of tower location of the mobile phone alegedly

MAT.AP .(F.C.) 251/2025 and conected maters

Page 4 of

used by R - 2, along with CDRs/tower location of the Husband for the period January, 2020 til date.

i.

MAT.APP.(FC) 285/2025 (Wife's Chalenges the disallowance of the Wife's p of the CPC for production of documents at serial nos. (ix), (xi), and

(xiv) to (xiv) of her aplication, and seks a direction to the Husband to produce al documents enumerated therein . iv.

MAT.APP.(FC) 275/2025 (Husband Asails the Impugned Order whereby the Family Court alowed the Wife's aplication under Section 151 of the CPC ap plication for CDR s /tower location, and partly al 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:

¶4T he mariage betwen the W ife and the H usband was solemnised on

10.10.202 at New Delhi , as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of the said wedlock , two children were born on

31.12.204 and

2.12.2010 respectively, both of whom presently reside with the W ife. Matrimonial discord subsequently arose, which

led the wife to institute a petition under Section 13(1)(i) & (ia) of the Hindu Mariage Act, 195 [ hereinafter referred HMA "] , registered as HMA No. 479/2023, seking disolution of mariage on gro unds of adultery and cruelty. In suport of her alegation of adultery, the W ife impleaded R - 2 as co - respondent in the petition. The

MAT.AP .(F.C.) 251/2025 and conected maters

Page 5 of

core alegation is that the Husband and R - 2 maintained an ili cit relationship and traveled/ stayed together on multiple oc casions at specified hotels/guest houses and locations.

¶5During pendency of HMA No. 479/2023 , t hre interlocutory aplications came up for consideration before the Family Court:

i. R - 2's application under Order of the CPC , read w ith Order VI Rule 1 of the CPC, seking deletion of her name from the aray of parties ; i. T he W ife's application under Se of the CPC seking preservation/production of CDRs including tower location of mobile phones used by the Husband and R - 2; and

i . T he W ife's application under Or of the CPC seking production by the H usband of 2 4 categories of documents.

¶6Vide th e comon I mpugned O rder dated 29.04.2025, the Family Court:

i. D ismised R - 2's application under Or of t he CPC , holding that she was a necesary and proper party to the procedings ; i. A lowed the W ife's aplication under Section 151 of the CPC , directing the SHO and concerned telecom providers to preserve and produce the CDR s of the H usband's mobile number, along with tower location charts of the Husband and R - 2 , for the period from January 2020 til date; and

MAT.AP .(F.C.) 251/2025 and conected maters

Page 6 of

i.

P artly alowed the W ife's aplication under Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC , directing production by the Husband of documents at serial nos.

(i) to (vi), (x), (xi) and (xi) – esentialy covering bank/credit card

statements , UPI

transactions , demat acounts and ESOP details , while rejecting production of the remaining documents, including WhatsAp , Microsoft Teams and Facebok Mesenger chats, FASTag

records , leave records, hotel bokings, travel detail s, on the ground that these amounted to fishing and roving enquiries.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

¶7R - 2 (Apelant in MAT. AP. (F.C.) 251/2025):

7.1.

The grievance of R - 2 in this A peal i s directed against the dismisal of her aplication under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC read with Order VI Rule 1 of the CPC seking deletion of her name from the aray of parties in HMA No. 479/2023.

7.2.

It is contended that her impleadment in a matrim onial case betwen the H usband and W ife was wholy misconceived. She placed reliance upon Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC, Order VI Rule 1 of the CPC, Order VI Rules 4 and 6 of the CPC, Section 21 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 [hereinafter refered to as —FC Act"] , as wel as Rules 12(a) and 7(g)(i) of the Delhi High Court Hindu Mariage Rules, 1979. Acording to her, these provisions make it a condition precedent for impleadment that there must be clear and specific pleadings of adultery , namely particu lars of time, date, place, and act of sexual intercourse.

MAT.AP .(F.C.) 251/2025 and conected maters

Page 7 of

7.3.

It was argued that the petition filed by the W ife fel woefuly short of this threshold. The W ife had not avered even a single instance of sexual intimacy, much les sexual intercourse, betwe n the H usband and R - 2. The metings pleaded in the petition, even if acepted at face value, were confined to public spaces or profesional setings and could not give rise to a cause of action for impleadment. R - 2 submited that in the absence of precise particulars, impleading her amounted to nothing more than a roving and humiliating enquiry, contrary to setled law that what is not pleaded canot be proved.

¶74 . R - 2 further argued that the Family Court fel into eror by stretching the inference of —adul pleadings. R - 2 contended that in the absence of explicit mention of sexual intercourse, the Court could not infer such acts from vag ue or general averments . The Family Court itself was unable to point to a single paragraph where sexual intimacy could be discerned, and its reasoning, in efect, substituted speculation for pleadings. Such an aproach, R - 2 urged, was inconsistent with the very rules which permit her impleadment – the same rules that also mandate specific particulars. There canot be one threshold for making a third party a respondent and another, lower threshold for infering adultery from vague asertions.

7.5.

It was als o submited that impleadment exposes her to public stigma and harasment, without any substantive basis. If at al her testimony is considered necesary, the W ife always has recourse to the ordinary law of evidence to sumon her as a witnes, without aray ing her as a party - respondent.

MAT.AP .(F.C.) 251/2025 and conected maters

Page 8 of

7.6.

On these premises, it was prayed that the Impugned Order dated

29.04.2025 rejecting her aplication under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC read with Order VI Rule 1 of the CPC be set aside, and her name be struck of fro m the aray of parties.

¶8R - 2(Apelant in MAT. AP. (F.C.) 256/2025):

8.1.

R - 2 has asailed the Impugned Order whereby the Family Court alowed the aplication filed by the W ife under Section 151 of the CPC directing disclosure of the tower location deta ils of the mobile phone used by R - 2 from the year 2020 til date.

8.2.

It was contended that the order sufers from grave ilegality inasmuch as it violates the R - 2's fundamental righ guaranted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India , as recognised in Justice K.S. Putaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India 1 and subsequent cases, which mandate that any invasion of privacy must met the tests of legality, necesity, and proportionality. It was urged that no prima facie case of adultery had ben m ade out in the pleadings of the Wife that could justify such an intrusion. The divorce petition, acording to R - 2, does not plead any specific instance of sexual intercourse betwen the Husband and R - 2, and in the absence of such particulars, compeling di sclosure of years of tower location data amounts to an impermisible intrusion into her private life.

8.3.

It was further contended that the aplication filed by the Wife is in the nature of roving and fishing enquiry into the private life of R - 2 , lacking precise particulars of time, place, or ocurenc e . In the

1 (2017) 10 SC 1

MAT.AP .(F.C.) 251/2025 and conected maters

Page 9 of

absence of such particulars, the order directing disclosure of tower location amounts to an unwaranted intrusion into her personal life, and is contrary to the setled principle that pleadings can ot be suplemented by speculative discovery.

8.4.

It was also submited that the petition has ben filed with the ulterior motive of harasing R - 2 and damaging her reputation and carer. The Wife has no locus standi to sek details of R - 2's private data, and the Family Court failed to apreciate that her baseles apprehensions cannot override the The alegations of adultery, even otherwise, do not cros the threshold required under Section 13(1)(i) of the HMA . It was urge d that compeling disclosure of several years of tower location data, without strict necesity, not only violates privacy but also sets a dangerous precedent in matrimonial disputes.

8.5.

R - 2 submits that the Impugned Order constitutes an unwaranted intru sion into her fundamental rights and should therefore be set aside.

¶9Wife (Apelant in MAT. AP. (F.C.) 285/2025):

9.1.

The Wife has asailed the Impugned Order , insofar as it partly rejected her aplication under Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC seking dis covery and production of certain documents at S erial No s .(ix ) , ( xi ) , ( xiv ) to ( xiv) which, acording to her, are esential for proving her case of adultery and cruelty against the Husband.

9.2.

It was contended that adultery, by its very nature, is a

MAT.AP .(F.C.) 251/2025 and conected maters

Page of

clandestine act, and direct evidence is rarely available . Consequently, circumstantial evidence such as cordinated travel, leave records, and focused electronic comunications asumes particular significance.

The Family Court's observation th t amounted to a "fishing enquiry ' was eroneous, as her aplication contained specific particulars –names of hotels, dates of stays, and travel details –fuly satisfying legal thresholds.

9.3.

The Wife urged that these documents are necesary not only for pr oving adultery under Section 13(1)(i) of the HMA, 195 but also for determining permanent alimony under Section 25 of the HMA , as they reveal the Husband's lifestyle and to this evidence, she argued, deprives her of a fai r trial. Reliance was placed on Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act , 1872 [hereinafter referred to as —IE Ac and Section 14 of the FC Act , which empower courts to receive material even if not strictly admisible under the IE Act.

9.4.

Judici al precedents were cited to suport her claim. In Aparna Choudhrie Kala & Anr. vs Vaibhav Kala 2 , this Court held that CDRs

and tower location constitute crucial evidence in adultery cases, echoing the view in Radena DN v. Rahul K 3 . Further reliance was placed on Sachin Arora v. Manju Arora 4 , where this Court ruled that production of hotel stays and cal details does not amount to a roving or fishing enquiry when the request is specifi c and particularized ; the Court also clarified th at the right to privacy is not absolute and must

2 2024 SC OnLine Del 876

3 2020 SC OnLine Ker 20535

4 2023 SC OnLine Del2692

MAT.AP .(F.C.) 251/2025 and conected maters

Page of

yield to the right to a fair trial.

9.5.

As to privacy concerns, the Wife submited that extraction of WhatsAp chats and cal records can be undertaken through a calibrated protocol with confidentiality saf eguards, thereby balancing the Husband's and R - 2's privacy rights with her right to present evidence.

9.6.

On these grounds, it was prayed that the Impugned Order dated

29.04.2025 be set aside to the extent it disalows discovery, and the Husband be direct ed to produce the requested records for efective adjudication of her divorce petition.

10.

Husband (Apelant in MAT. AP. (F.C.) 2 7 5/2025):

10.1. The Husband has asailed the I mpugned O rder dated

29.04.2025 to the extent it partly ications under Section 151 of the CPC and Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC. It was contended that the Family Court ered in directing disclosure of the Husband's confidential financial records and in sumoning CDRs and tower location data , despite the Wife's fail prima facie case of adultery or concealment of asets.

10.2. The Husband urged that his Afidavit of Income, Asets and Expenditure had already ben filed in strict compliance with Rajne e sh v. Neha 5 , and that no deficiency therein was ever pointed out by the Wife. The Family Court, instead of requiring the Wife to place her own ful and candid disclosure of income, wrongly burdened the

5 (2021) 2 SC 324

MAT.AP .(F.C.) 251/2025 and conected maters

Page of

Husband with further disclosure of documents not relevant to the stage of proce edings.

10.3. As regards financial documents (bank acounts, credit cards, UPI transactions, demat and ESOP records), it was submited that these are wholy premature and unecesary, since determination of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the HMA ari ses only after adjudication of the divorce petition. By compeling such discovery at an interlocutory stage, the Family Court efectively alowed a fishing and roving enquiry into his personal afairs, which is impermisible in law.

10.4. The Husband also submited that several of the categories of documents sought were not within his posesion, custody, or power, particularly metadata, chats and electronic records spaning multiple platforms. The Wife's demand for records amou nted to an unbridled fishing and roving enquiry, unsuported by specific pleadings.

10.5. As regards CDRs and tower location data , the Husband contended that the directions are manifestly arbitrary . No specific date, place, or incident of aleged adultery has ben pleaded in the Wife's petition. Mere telephonic c canot establish adulterous conduct, which must be proved by cogent evidence.

10.6. While admiting that he frequently comunicated with R - 2, the Husband explained t hat the same was necesitated purely by profesional obligations, as his headquarters are based in the United

MAT.AP .(F.C.) 251/2025 and conected maters

Page of

States of America and client cals often take place acros international time zones. The Family Court failed to apreciate this context and wrongl y drew adverse inferences.

¶107 . It was emphasized that the Husband is engaged in sensitive international busines dealings, and disclosure of voluminous financial records and telecomunication data would compromise client confidentiality and cause serious prejudice to his profesional standing. The Family Court failed to balance such concerns against the Wife's speculative allegations.

¶108 . The Husband also relied on the f under Section 24 of the HMA had already ben disposed of by consent on 19.1.2024, and that she had ben earlier denied interim maintenance by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 13.09.2024. Therefore, the discovery aplications were not only premature but stod efectively setled by earlier judicial orders.

10.

¶9On these grounds, it was prayed that the directions for product ion of financial documents, CDRs and tower location data be set aside and the Wife's applicatio be dismised.

FINDINGS & ANALYSIS

1.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and

MAT.AP .(F.C.) 251/2025 and conected maters Page 1 of * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %