M AT.AP .(F.C.) 251/2025 and conected maters Page 1 of 32 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 18 .08 .2025 Judgment pronounced on: 29 .08.2025 + M AT.AP.(F.C.) 251/2025 and CM APL. 50033/2025 M S. TANVI CHATURVEDI ...Appellant Through: M r. Prateek Chaudhary, Adv. versus M S. SM ITA SHRIVASTAVA & ANR. ...Respondents Through: M r. Prashant Ghai, Adv for R - 1. M r. Prashant Singh, Adv for R - 2. + M AT.AP.(F.C.) 285/2025 and CM APL. 48858 -48859/2025 SM ITA SHRIVASTAVA ...Appellant Through: M r. Prashant Ghai, Adv. versus SUM IT VERM A & ANR. ...Respondents Through: M r. Prashant Singh, Adv. for R - 1. M r. Prateek Chaudhary, Adv. for R -2. + M AT.AP.(F.C.) 256/2025 and CM APL. 41978/2025 M S. TANVI CHATURVEDI ...Appellant Through: M r. Prateek Chaudhary, Adv. versus M S. SM ITA SHRIVASTAVA & ANR. ...Respondents Through: M r. Prashant Ghai, Adv for R - 1. M r. Prashant Singh, Adv for R - 2. M AT.AP .(F.C.) 251/2025 and conected maters Page 2 of 32 + M AT.AP.(F.C.) 275/2025 and CM APL. 46455 -46456/2025 SUM IT VERM A ...Appellant Through: M r. Prashant Singh, Adv. versus SM ITA SRIVASTAVA AND ANR ...Respondents Through: M r. Prashant Ghai, Adv. for R - 1. M r. Pratek Chaudhary, Adv. for R -2. CORAM : HON'BLE M R. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE M R. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR J U D G M E N T ANIL KSHETARPAL , J. 1. The present batch of four connected Appeals assails diferent parts of the common interlocutory Order passed on 29.04.2025 >KHUHLQDIWHU UHIHUUHG WR DV ³,PSXJ HG 2UGHU´@ E\ WKH )D All four Appeals arise out of the same matrimonial procedings, being HM A 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 , addressed: i. the impleadment of the alleged paramour as a party to the procedings; ii. the production of certain documents under Order XI Rule 14 C ode of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter refered to as ³&3&´@ ; and M AT.AP .(F.C.) 251/2025 and conected maters Page 3 of 32 iii. the disclosure of Call Detail Records [hereinafter referred WRDV³ CDRs ´@ and tower location details under Section 151 of the CPC. 2. Since all four A ppeals arise out of the same lis and turn upon overlapping issues , they are being , with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties , disposed of by this consolidated judgment. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be refered to by their status they held before the Family Court. The Appellant in M AT.AP.(F .C.) 285/2025 is the Wife/ Petitioner [ he reinafter refered WR DV ³:LIH´@ ; the Appellant in M AT.AP.(F .C.) 275/2025 is the Husband/ Respondent No.1 [herei QDIWHUUHIHUUHGWRDV ; and the Appellant in M AT.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 ³5 -´ ]. Apeals and Reliefs i. 0$7$33)& 5¶V Apeal ± Im pleadm ent): Seks setting aside of the Impugned Order to the extent it rejects her application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC (and invoking Order VI Rule 11 of the CPC) for striking of her name from the aray of parties in HM A 479/2023. ii. 0$7$33)& 5¶V Apeal ± Tower Location/ CDRs): Challenge is to the Order allowing WKH:LIH¶V application under Section 151 of the CPC directing preservation and production of tower location of the mobile phone allegedly M AT.AP .(F.C.) 251/2025 and conected maters Page 4 of 32 used by R -2, along with CDRs/tower location of the Husband for the period January, 2020 till date. iii. 0$7$33)&:LIH¶V Challenges WKHGLVDOORZDQFHRIWKH:LIH¶VS of the CPC for production of documents at serial nos. (ix), (xi), and (xiv) to (xxiv) of her application, and seeks a direction to the Husband to produce all documents enumerated therein . iv. 0$7$33)&+XVEDQG Assails the Impugned Order whereby the Family Court allowed the :LIH¶V application under Section 151 of the CPC ap plication for CDR sWRZHUORFDWLRQDQGSDUWO\DO 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 M ATRIX: 4. The mariage betwen the Wife and the Husband was solemnised on 10.10.2002 at New Delhi , as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of the said wedlock , two children were born on 31.12.2004 and 22.12.2010 respectively, both of whom presently reside with the Wife. M atrimonial discord subsequently arose, which led the wife to institute a petition under Section 13(1)(i) & (ia) of the Hindu M ariage Act, 1955 [ KHUHLQDIWHU UHIHUUHG HM A ´], registered as HM A No. 479/2023, seking dissolution of mariage on gro unds of adultery and cruelty. In support of her allegation of adultery, the Wife impleaded R -2 as co -respondent in the petition. The M AT.AP .(F.C.) 251/2025 and conected maters Page 5 of 32 core allegation is that the Husband and R -2 maintained an illi cit relationship and travelled/ stayed together on multiple oc casions at specified hotels/guest houses and locations. 5. During pendency of HM A No. 479/2023 , thre interlocutory applications came up for consideration before the Family Court: i. R-¶VDSSOLFDWLRQXQGHU2UGHU of the CPC , read w ith Order VI Rule 11 of the CPC, seking deletion of her name from the aray of parties ; ii. The WLIH¶V DSSOLFDWLRQ XQGHU 6H of the CPC seking preservation/production of CDRs including tower location of mobile phones used by the Husband and R -2; and iii . The WLIH¶V DSSOLFDWLRQ XQGHU 2U of the CPC seking production by the Husband of 2 4 categories of documents. 6. Vide th e common I mpugned Order dated 29.04.2025, the Family Court: i. Dismissed R -¶VDSSOLFDWLRQXQGHU2U of the CPC , holding that she was a necessary and proper party to the procedings ; ii. Allowed the WLIH¶V application under Section 151 of the CPC , directing the SHO and concerned telecom providers to preserve and produce the CDR s of the HXVEDQG¶V mobile number, along with tower location charts of the Husband and R - 2, for the period from January 2020 till date; and M AT.AP .(F.C.) 251/2025 and conected maters Page 6 of 32 iii. Partly allowed the WLIH¶V application under Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC , directing production by the Husband of documents at serial nos. (i) to (viii), (x), (xii) and (xiii) ² essentially covering bank/credit card statements , UPI transactions , demat acounts and ESOP details , while rejecting production of the remaining documents, including W hatsApp , M icrosoft Teams and Facebook M essenger chats, FASTag records , leave records, hotel bookings, travel detail s, on the ground that these amounted to fishing and roving enquiries. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES 7. R-2 (Apellant in M AT. APP. (F.C.) 251/2025): 7.1. The grievance of R-2 in this Appeal i s directed against the dismissal of her application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC read with Order VI Rule 11 of the CPC seking deletion of her name from the aray of parties in HM A No. 479/2023. 7.2. It is contended that her impleadment in a matrim onial case between the Husband and Wife was wholly 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 ³)& $FW´@ , as well as Rules 12(a) and 7(g)(iii) of the Delhi High Court Hindu M ariage 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. M AT.AP .(F.C.) 251/2025 and conected maters Page 7 of 32 7.3. It was argued that the petition filed by the Wife fell woefully short of this threshold. The Wife had not avered even a single instance of sexual intimacy, much less sexual intercourse, betwe n the Husband and R -2. The metings pleaded in the petition, even if acepted at face value, were confined to public spaces or professional settings and could not give rise to a cause of action for impleadment. R-2 submitted that in the absence of precise particulars, impleading her amounted to nothing more than a roving and humiliating enquiry, contrary to settled law that what is not pleaded cannot be proved. 7. 4. R-2 further argued that the Family Court fell into eror by VWUHWFKLQJ WKH LQIHUHQFH RI ³DGXO 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 approach, R -2 urged, was inconsistent with the very rules which permit her impleadment ² the same rules that also mandate specific particulars. There cannot be one threshold for making a third party a respondent and another, lower threshold for infering adultery from vague assertions. 7.5. It was als o submitted that impleadment exposes her to public stigma and harassment, without any substantive basis. If at all her testimony is considered necessary, the Wife always has recourse to the ordinary law of evidence to summon her as a witness, without array ing her as a party -respondent. M AT.AP .(F.C.) 251/2025 and conected maters Page 8 of 32 7.6. On these premises, it was prayed that the Impugned Order dated 29.04.2025 rejecting her application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC read with Order VI Rule 11 of the CPC be set aside, and her name be struck off fro m the aray of parties. 8. R-2(Apellant in M AT. APP. (F.C.) 256/2025): 8.1. R-2 has assailed the Impugned Order whereby the Family Court allowed the application filed by the Wife 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 till date. 8.2. It was contended that the order sufers from grave illegality inasmuch as it violates the R -¶V IXQGDPHQWDO ULJK guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India , as recognised in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India 1 and subsequent cases, which mandate that any invasion of privacy must met the tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality. It was urged that no prima facie case of adultery had ben m ade out in the pleadings of the W ife that could justify such an intrusion. The divorce petition, acording to R-2, does not plead any specific instance of sexual intercourse between the Husband and R -2, and in the absence of such particulars, compelling di sclosure of years of tower location data amounts to an impermissible intrusion into her private life. 8.3. It was further contended that the application filed by the W ife 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 SCC 1 M AT.AP .(F.C.) 251/2025 and conected maters Page 9 of 32 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 settled principle that pleadings cann ot be supplemented by speculative discovery. 8.4. It was also submitted that the petition has ben filed with the ulterior motive of harassing R -2 and damaging her reputation and carer. The W ife has no locus standi to sek details of R -¶VSULYDWH data, and the Family Court failed to appreciate that her baseless DSSUHKHQVLRQV FDQQRW RYHUULGH WKH The allegations of adultery, even otherwise, do not cross the threshold required under Section 13(1)(i) of the HM A . It was urge d that compelling disclosure of several years of tower location data, without strict necessity, not only violates privacy but also sets a dangerous precedent in matrimonial disputes. 8.5. R-2 submits that the Impugned Order constitutes an unwarranted intru sion into her fundamental rights and should therefore be set aside. 9. W ife (Apellant in M AT. APP. (F.C.) 285/2025): 9.1. The W ife has assailed the Impugned Order , insofar as it partly rejected her application under Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC seeking dis covery and production of certain documents at Serial No s.(ix ), (xi ), (xiv ) to (xxiv) which, acording to her, are essential for proving her case of adultery and cruelty against the Husband. 9.2. It was contended that adultery, by its very nature, is a M AT.AP .(F.C.) 251/2025 and conected maters Page 10 of 32 clandestine act, and direct evidence is rarely available . Consequently, circumstantial evidence such as coordinated travel, leave records, and focused electronic communications assumes particular significance. 7KH )DPLO\ &RXUW¶V REVHUYDWLRQ WK t amounted to a µfishing enquiry ¶ was eroneous, as her application contained specific particulars ²names of hotels, dates of stays, and travel details ²fully satisfying legal thresholds. 9.3. The W ife urged that these documents are necessary not only for pr oving adultery under Section 13(1)(i) of the HM A, 1955 but also for determining permanent alimony under Section 25 of the HM A , as they UHYHDOWKH+XVEDQG¶VOLIHVW\OHDQG 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 >KHUHLQDIWHU UHIHUUHGWR DV ³,( $F and Section 14 of the FC Act , which empower courts to receive material even if not strictly admissible under the IE Act. 9.4. Judici al precedents were cited to support 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. M anju Arora 4, where this Court ruled that production of hotel stays and call 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 22024 SCC OnLine Del 876 3 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 20535 4 2023 SCC OnLine Del2692 M AT.AP .(F.C.) 251/2025 and conected maters Page 1 of 32 yield to the right to a fair trial. 9.5. As to privacy concerns, the W ife submitted that extraction of W hatsApp chats and call records can be undertaken through a calibrated protocol with confidentiality saf eguards, thereby balancing the +XVEDQG¶V DQG 5 -¶V 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 disallows discovery, and the Husband be direct ed to produce the requested records for efective adjudication of her divorce petition. 10. Husband (Apellant in M AT. APP. (F.C.) 2 75/2025): 10.1. The Husband has assailed the Impugned Order dated WR WKH H[WHQW LW SDUWO\ 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 +XVEDQG¶V confidential financial records and in summoning CDRs and tower location data GHVSLWHWKH:LIH¶VIDLO prima facie case of adultery or concealment of assets. 10.2. The Husband urged that his Afidavit of Income, Assets and Expenditure had already ben filed in strict compliance with Rajne esh v. Neha 5, and that no deficiency therein was ever pointed out by the W ife. The Family Court, instead of requiring the W ife to place her own full and candid disclosure of income, wrongly burdened the 5(2021) 2 SCC 324 M AT.AP .(F.C.) 251/2025 and conected maters Page 12 of 32 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 submitted that these are wholly premature and unnecessary, since determination of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the HM A ari ses only after adjudication of the divorce petition. By compelling such discovery at an interlocutory stage, the Family Court efectively allowed a fishing and roving enquiry into his personal afairs, which is impermissible in law. 10.4. The Husband also submitted that several of the categories of documents sought were not within his possession, custody, or power, particularly metadata, chats and electronic records spanning multiple SODWIRUPV 7KH :LIH¶V GHPDQG IRU records amou nted to an unbridled fishing and roving enquiry, unsupported 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 alleged adultery has ben pleaded in the :LIH¶V SHWLWLRQ 0HUH WHOHSKRQLF F cannot establish adulterous conduct, which must be proved by cogent evidence. 10.6. W hile admitting that he frequently communicated with R-2, the Husband explained t hat the same was necessitated purely by professional obligations, as his headquarters are based in the United M AT.AP .(F.C.) 251/2025 and conected maters Page 13 of 32 States of America and client calls often take place across international time zones. The Family Court failed to appreciate this context and wrongl y drew adverse inferences. 10. 7. It was emphasized that the Husband is engaged in sensitive international business dealings, and disclosure of voluminous financial records and telecomunication data would compromise client confidentiality and cause serious prejudice to his professional standing. The Family Court failed to balance such concerns against WKH:LIH¶VVSHFXODWLYHDOOHJDWLRQV 10. 8. 7KH+XVEDQGDOVRUHOLHGRQWKHI under Section 24 of the HM A had already ben disposed of by consent on 19.11.2024, and that she had ben earlier denied interim maintenance by the M etropolitan M agistrate on 13.09.2024. Therefore, the discovery applications were not only premature but stood effectively settled by earlier judicial orders. 10. 9. On these grounds, it was prayed that the directions for product ion of financial documents, CDRs and tower location data be VHWDVLGHDQGWKH:LIH¶VDSSOLFDWLR be dismissed. FINDINGS & ANALYSIS 11. W e have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and