The Delhi High Court on Wednesday cationed that matrimonial litigations cannot degenerate into a mutual humiliation contests between estranged spouses through the weaponisation of private images and intimate material.

Justice Sachin Datta made these observations in a case where a woman raised concerns about intimate pictures circulated by her husband and his legal team in a divorce petition filed before a family court.

Observing that in retaliation, the wife also later placed on court record certain objectionable photographs and videos of the husband, the Court stated,

“While the gravity of the two sets of material is not comparable, the larger principle applies viz. matrimonial litigations must not be allowed to degenerate into contests of mutual humiliations through weaponisation of private images and intimate material.”

The couple had got married in 2022. In 2023, however, the wife filed a domestic violence case alleging cruelty and harassment by the husband and his family members. Thereafter, the husband filed a divorce petition. 

The wife later approached the High Court, contending that her husband violated her right to privacy by placing on the court record certain intimate pictures that she shared with her doctor over a WhatsApp chat. 

She also submitted that the husband was in breach of an order passed by the High Court in 2015 that requires permission from the family court before sensitive material or private photos could be filed as part of matrimonial disputes. 

The 2015 ruling included directions for parties to first obtain the family court's permission before annexing private images in pleadings before the court. Further, there were also directions to ensure that such images are submitted in redacted form or in sealed cover.

The woman told the High Court that her estranged husband and his lawyers had flouted this 2015 ruling by adding private images of her in his divorce petition. She contended that they were, therefore, liable to face contempt proceedings for wilfully disobeying the 2015 judgment.

The Court took strong exception to the annexing of such intimate pictures as part of the court record by the petitioner's husband and his lawyers.

“The act of placing on record the aforementioned photographs of the petitioner, was a grave lapse,” the Court stated.

However, it also noted that the husband had since filed an application before the family court to keep the private photos in a sealed cover.

He and his lawyers also apologised to the High Court for their lapse, adding that they were unaware of the 2015 general directives. In view of this, the Court decided not to initiate contempt proceedings against them.

The Court, however, warned them to be more careful in future. The Court added that in their zeal to advance a client's case, lawyers must not resort to tactics that could sacrifice the dignity of their client's legal opponent;.

"While their unconditional apology has been accepted, this Court cautions them to exercise greater circumspection in future. The zeal to advance a client’s cause in a matrimonial litigation can never justify the sacrifice of the dignity of the opposite party, least of all where the opposite party is a woman and the material in question is of such intimate character," the Court said.

The Court further restrained the husband and his advocates from circulating intimate pictures of the petitioner.

It granted liberty to the petitioner to move the family court seeking the masking of her identity in the casefiles.

The High Court further requested the family court to consider removing the private photographs submitted earlier from its records and to place them in a sealed cover. It also asked the family court to mask petitioner's identity and restrict access to the case files.

Advocates Rubinder Ghuman, Anu Mehta, Rajat Tyagi, Adya Nanda appeared for the petitioner (wife).

Senior advocate Mohit Mathur with advocate Aditya Sharda appeared for the advocates who represented the husband before the family court.

Senior advocate Jatan Singh along with advocates Siddharth Singh, Vanishka Adhana, Jashank Srivastav and Kartikeya Basoya appeared for the husband.

[Read judgment]