The Delhi High Court has issued a stern warning against the weaponisation of intimate photographs and private material in matrimonial litigation, stating that such disputes must not degenerate into battles of humiliation. Justice Sachin Datta, while hearing a petition on Wednesday, emphasised that the duty to represent a client aggressively cannot override the obligation to protect the dignity of the opposing party.
Case Background: Private Photos Filed in Divorce Case
The court was hearing a petition filed by a woman who alleged that her husband and his legal team violated her privacy by filing intimate photographs as part of a divorce case pending before a family court. The woman had married in 2022 and initiated proceedings under the domestic violence law the following year, alleging cruelty and harassment by her husband and his family. Her husband subsequently sought divorce in the family court.
The woman argued that the husband placed on record private photographs she had shared with her doctor via WhatsApp messages, amounting to a breach of her right to privacy. The court noted that the woman later also filed certain objectionable photographs and videos of her husband, but observed that the nature and gravity of the material were not comparable. Nonetheless, the principle governing such disputes remained the same.
Court's Observations on Privacy and Dignity
“Matrimonial litigations must not be allowed to degenerate into contests of mutual humiliation through weaponisation of private images and intimate material,” the court observed. It described the act of placing intimate photographs on record as a “grave lapse” and noted that the husband had subsequently moved an application before the family court to place the photographs in a sealed cover.
The woman contended that the filing violated directions issued by the Delhi High Court in 2015, which require parties to obtain prior permission from the family court before filing private photographs or sensitive personal material. The 2015 directions mandate such material to be filed in redacted form or in sealed cover to prevent unnecessary disclosure. Advocates Rubinder Ghuman and Anu Mehta, appearing for the woman, argued that the husband and his lawyers ignored these safeguards and sought contempt action against them.
Apology Accepted, Contempt Proceedings Avoided
The husband and his legal team tendered an unconditional apology, stating they were unaware of the 2015 directions. Taking note of the apology and subsequent corrective steps, the court decided not to initiate contempt proceedings. However, it issued a clear warning that aggressive representation must never compromise the opposing party’s dignity. The High Court also restrained the husband and his advocates from circulating any intimate photographs of the petitioner.
Family Court Directed to Remove and Seal Photos
The court granted the woman liberty to approach the family court seeking masking of her identity in the case records. It requested the family court to consider removing the photographs already placed on record and preserving them in a sealed cover. Additionally, the family court was asked to mask the petitioner’s identity and restrict access to the case files to protect her privacy and dignity.
