Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163
A balanced scale symbolizing justice weighing financial documents against privacy protection
The judgment from the High Court of Delhi concerns a matrimonial dispute where the Wife sought dissolution of marriage on grounds including adultery and cruelty. One key aspect of the judgment relates to the production of the Husband’s financial documents during the litigation process.
Context
· The Wife applied under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), seeking production of various financial documents of the Husband.
· These documents included credit card statements, UPI transaction records, demat account statements, paytm transactions, Amazon purchase records, ESOP details, and statements from multiple years.
· The Wife argued these documents were necessary not only to substantiate adultery but also to assess the Husband’s financial capacity for determining permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), 1955.
Family Court’s Approach
· The Family Court partially allowed the application, permitting production of financial documents at Serial Nos. (i) to (viii), (x), (xii), and (xiii), essentially covering relevant bank and credit card statements, investment records, and documents evidencing income and assets.
· It rejected other requests, including WhatsApp, Microsoft Teams, Facebook Messenger chats, FASTag records, leave records, hotel bookings, and travel details, on the ground that they amounted to fishing and roving inquiries beyond the scope of pleadings.
Husband’s Contentions
· The Husband contended that the application for financial documents was premature since alimony claims arise only after the divorce decree.
· He also argued the documents sought were irrelevant to the current stage, overly broad, and an invasion of privacy.
· He claimed compliance with disclosure rules as per Rajneesh v. Neha (2021) and emphasized professional confidentiality concerns.
· He further asserted some documents were not under his control and that the Wife’s requests were a fishing expedition unsupported by specific pleadings.
The High Court’s Findings on Financial Documents
· The Court recognized the wide but not unlimited scope of discovery under Order XI Rule 14, emphasizing that documents sought must be relevant to the matters in dispute.
· It stressed the need for a practical and flexible approach rather than a blanket rejection of discovery applications on grounds of speculation.
· The Court held that the Wife is entitled to documents specifically related to her legally wedded Husband and the allegations—documents tied to a particular person, period, and issue.
· It found the Family Court’s partial allowance appropriate and reasoned, permitting production of documents directly pertinent to the Wife’s claims and rejecting those beyond the pleadings or unrelated to financial standing or maintenance claims.
· The judgment emphasized balancing the Wife’s right to evidence with the need to protect the Husband from undue fishing, harassment, or intrusion into unrelated private matters.
· The Court allowed production of the financial documents at Serial Nos. (i) to (viii), (x), (xii), and (xiii) in a manner proportional to the issues in dispute.
· It concluded that allowing these financial disclosures does not constitute an abuse of the discovery process and is justified for a fair adjudication of claims.
Conclusion
The judgment confirms that in matrimonial disputes:
· Courts can order production of financial documents relevant to alimony, maintenance, and proving adultery.
· Discovery must be specific, relevant, and proportionate to the pleaded issues.
· Courts will reject irrelevant, speculative, or overly intrusive disclosure applications to protect privacy.
· The court exercises a balanced discretion to ensure fair access to necessary evidence while preventing fishing expeditions.
· The Husband was directed to produce the specified financial records to facilitate effective legal proceedings, subject to confidentiality safeguards.
This decision affirms the principle that evidence production in matrimonial cases must support substantive justice without violating proportionality and privacy protections.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 251/2025 and CM APPL. 50033/2025
MS. TANVI CHATURVEDI Vs MS. SMITA SHRIVASTAVA & ANR.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
Author: ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
Judgment pronounced on: 29.08.2025.
Citation: 2025 DHC 7474 DB
