Wife entitled to husband’s CDR, location data if she suspects affair: Delhi HC

The family court had earlier allowed the wife’s application and had directed the SHO and telecom providers to preserve the details from January 2020 to date.

The Delhi High Court on Friday ordered that a wife can seek preservation and disclosure of call data records (CDR) and location details of her husband and his alleged paramour to substantiate claims of adultery, saying that these are objective records that assist in the process of adjudication.

High court upholds wife’s right to access CDR, location data in adultery case(Representative image)

A bench of justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar delivered the verdict while hearing a petition filed by the husband and his alleged paramour, challenging the family court’s April 2025 order. The family court had allowed the wife’s application seeking the preservation and disclosure of the paramour’s location details, as well as the husband’s CDR, asserting that the same was imperative to prove the charge.

The couple got married in October 2002 and had two children. However, the wife sought divorce in 2023 on the grounds of adultery and cruelty, claiming that her husband and his alleged lover maintained an illicit relationship and travelled together on multiple occasions.

The family court, on April 29, had allowed the wife’s application and had directed the SHO and telecom providers to preserve the details from January 2020 to date.

In her petition before the high court, the paramour had asserted that the permission granted to the wife is illegal, violative of the fundamental right to privacy, and the application was like fishing enquiry into her private life. She further submitted that the woman had only sought the details with an ulterior motive to harass and damage her reputation.

The husband had added that his wife had failed to prima facie establish a case of adultery. He further submitted that mere telephonic conversations or tower proximity could not establish adulterous conduct.

Considering the contentions, the court upheld the family court’s order, citing the 2003 Supreme Court’s ruling in Sharda v. Dharmpal, in which it was held that limited intrusions into personal privacy are allowed if they are necessary to uncover the truth and ensure justice.

“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 held in its 32-page verdict.

It added, “In Sharda v. Dharmpal, the Supreme Court upheld limited incursions into personal privacy in matrimonial disputes, holding that such directions are permissible if necessary to arrive at the truth. The same principle applies to CDRs and location data, which are objective records capable of aiding adjudication.”