The Delhi High Court has warned that matrimonial disputes cannot be allowed to descend into battles of humiliation where estranged spouses seek to wound each other by placing private photographs and intimate material on court records.
Making strong observations on privacy and dignity in family disputes, Justice Sachin Datta, while pronouncing the order on Wednesday, said matrimonial litigation must not turn into a weapon for exposing or embarrassing the other side through personal and sensitive material.
The observations came while the court was hearing a petition filed by a woman who alleged that her husband and his legal team had violated her privacy by filing intimate photographs as part of a divorce case pending before a family court.
The court noted that the husband had placed on record certain private photographs that the woman had shared with her doctor over WhatsApp messages. The woman argued that the filing of such material amounted to a breach of her right to privacy.
During the proceedings, the court also found that the woman later placed certain objectionable photographs and videos relating to her husband on record. While observing that the nature and gravity of the material filed by the two sides was not comparable, the court said the principle governing such disputes remained the same.
“Matrimonial litigations must not be allowed to degenerate into contests of mutual humiliation through weaponisation of private images and intimate material,” the court observed.
The couple got married in 2022. The following year, the woman initiated proceedings under the domestic violence law, alleging cruelty and harassment by her husband and his family members. Her husband subsequently approached the family court seeking divorce.
The woman later moved the High Court, contending that her husband had violated her privacy by placing intimate photographs on the judicial record.
She further argued that the action was in clear breach of directions issued by the Delhi High Court in 2015 regulating the filing of sensitive material in matrimonial disputes.
The 2015 directions require parties to obtain prior permission from the family court before filing private photographs or sensitive personal material in judicial proceedings. The directions also require such material to be filed in redacted form or in sealed cover to prevent unnecessary disclosure.
Appearing for the woman, advocates Rubinder Ghuman and Anu Mehta argued that the woman’s husband and his lawyers had ignored these safeguards and had annexed private photographs without obtaining permission from the family court. They sought contempt action against them for wilfully violating the earlier directions of the High Court.
Taking a serious note of the issue, the court described the act of placing the intimate photographs on record as a “grave lapse”. However, it also noted that the husband had subsequently moved an application before the family court seeking to place the photographs in a sealed cover.
The husband and his legal team tendered an unconditional apology before the High Court, stating that they were unaware of the 2015 directions governing such cases. Taking note of the apology and the subsequent corrective steps, the court decided not to initiate contempt proceedings.
At the same time, it issued a clear warning that the duty to represent a client aggressively can never override the obligation to protect the dignity of the opposing party. The High Court also restrained the husband and his advocates from circulating any intimate photographs of the petitioner.
It granted liberty to the woman to approach the family court seeking masking of her identity in the case records.
Further, it requested the family court to consider removing the photographs already placed on record and preserving them in a sealed cover. It also asked the family court to mask the petitioner’s identity and restrict access to the case files in order to protect her privacy and dignity.
