A division bench of Supreme Court was not interested to interfere with the Delhi High Court Judgment.

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-refuses-to-interfere-with-delhi-hc-order-allowing-wife-to-seek-husbands-hotel-cdr-records-to-prove-adultery-539935

The following is the impugned Delhi High Court Judgment. The husband may have to have a serious discussion with his Counsel at Family Court, where the Reply was filed with certain admissions. Thoroughly self-sabotaging style drafting! Now, his only shield is Cross Examination Stage to bring out the truth. Hope it is handled at least now professionally and properly.

From Para 19,

19. … Moreover, in his written statement filed before the learned Family Court, the petitioner had taken a totally contrary stand claiming that he had gone to Jaipur on an official trip along with his female colleague for which purpose two rooms were reserved in Hotel Fairmont. This in itself, he contends is sufficient to prima facie show that the petitioner in order to conceal his adulterous acts is trying to take contradictory stands before the learned Family Court to somehow prevent disclosure of the details regarding his stay in the hotel being well aware that this disclosure would in itself show adultery on his part. In support of his plea, he seeks to place to reliance on a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Civil Revision Petition No.2385 and 2466 of 2018 titled K Srinivas Rao vs Nalam Naga Kamala.

From Para 32,

32. … Furthermore, what needs to be noted that the petitioner has taken contradictory stands regarding the presence of his lady friend in the hotel. While in his written statement he has stated that he was on an official trip to Jaipur, along with his female colleague and therefore, two rooms were booked for them in Hotel Fairmont, in response to the application he has claimed that he met the lady friend by chance in the hotel as she was also co-incidentally staying there. The respondent is the estranged wife of the petitioner who obviously does not has any direct evidence of her husband indulging in acts of adultery. By resort to Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, she is, only trying to seek production of evidence which she reasonably believes will prove her charge of adultery which by its very nature can be inferred only from circumstances.

From Para 39,

39. From the aforesaid, it is evident that it has been repeatedly held by the Apex Court that the right to privacy, as enshrined under Article 21, is not an absolute right. In the present case, the Court has on the one side, a husband who is taking contradictory stands in his pleadings…