Delhi court rejects plea by Army Major for CCTV footage of hotel in which his wife stayed with lover

A Delhi court recently rejected an Army Major’s plea seeking CCTV footage and booking details of a hotel where his wife and her alleged paramour stayed [Major XYZ v Ibis Hotel Aerocity]. .Civil Judge Vaibhav Pratap Singh of the Patiala House Courts rejected the case suo motu and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim that he suffered the ‘tort of loss of consortium and alienation of affection’. Consortium, in legal language, means the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. It is often applied in motor accident claims cases.The Court ruled that this doctrine, being applied to situations where a third party's interference leads to the breakdown of a marital relationship, is weak in nature and inapplicable in today’s time. “The dated idea of a man stealing away the wife of another man, without ascribing any role or responsibility to the woman, is to be rejected. It takes agency away from women and dehumanises them… The Plaintiff’s selective blame and pursuit of the paramour fails to acknowledge that adultery may not be the cause of a marriage’s failure— it may merely be a symptom,” the Court said. .It noted that the concept has already been rejected by the Supreme Court when it struck down the law criminalising adultery. The Court referred to the novel 'The End of the Affair' by Graham Greene, later adapted into a movie, to stress the argument. “To paraphrase from the book, the burden of fidelity rests with the one who made the promise. It is not the lover who has betrayed the marriage, but the one who made the vow and broke it. The outsider was never bound by it.”.The suit was filed seeking a direction to the hotel to provide booking details and the CCTV footage of the common areas of the hotel.It was stated that the plaintiff is involved in a marital and divorce dispute with his wife and she is having an affair with another man who is also serving in the Army as a Major. However, he did not make the wife or her alleged lover a party to the suit. The hotel argued that it saves CCTV recording only up to three months and the footage is not available with them now. .After considering the case, the Court held that there is an expectation of privacy when one visits a hotel, and most hotels thrive on assurances of said privacy and discretion."When one visits a hotel, no doubt, not being invisible, the persons in the common areas may see the visitor and even the company of the visitor but that is limited to the people physically present in the property." It further held that the officer had failed to demonstrate a clear and enforceable legal right.The plaintiff has failed to show the hotel owes him any duty to provide the information, the Court said. “The Plaintiff’s grievance remains a moral one, not a legal one. This Court may sympathise with him but that is no reason to grant an injunction when not allowed by the law. While he may have a cause, he certainly does not have a case,” the Court said. Therefore, it rejected the plea. .Advocate Harshvardhan appeared for the plaintiff Army Major..[Read Judgment]