ORDER : 1. Aggrieved by the Order passed on IA No.6 in M.C. No.6606/2025 dated 31.10.2025 by the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, the third party is before this Court.6 2. Respondent No.1 has filed M.C.No.6606/2025 seeking divorce against respondent No.2, the husband, on the ground of cruelty. It is alleged by respondent No.1 that respondent No.2 is living in an adulterous relationship with the respondent No.3 herein. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is the third party before this Court, is only a friend of the respondents. 4. It is submitted that respondent No.1, who is the petitioner in M.C. No.6606/2025, has filed I.A. No.6 seeking the following reliefs: 5. On considering the said application filed by the wife, the Court passed the order. The operative portion of the order, as contained in paragraph No.17, which reads as under: “17. Point No.2: In result, I pass the following: ORDER IA.No.6 filed by the petitioner under Order XVI Rule 6 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. is hereby allowed. Accordingly, the General Manager/Front Office Manager, JW Marriot Bengaluru, Prestige Golfshire Resort & Spa, Nandi Hills Road Karahalli Post, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru-562 162 is directed to preserve and produce the below mentioned documents: 1) Accommodation details of Chaitanya V. Cotha and UrmilaAnand for the period from 03.10.2025 to 05.10.2025. 2) Details of the person who booked the room or rooms for the respondent Nos. & 2 and date of booking said rooms with Contact details 3) Guest Registration Forms, visitor entry logs and copies of identification proofs submitted at the time of check-in, during such stay, pertaining to respondent Nos.1 & 2. 4) CCTV footage for the period from 03.10.2025 to 05.10.2025 covering the common areas of the premises, including but not limited to the corridors, lobbies and other areas in the vicinity of the room allotted to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 during their stay. Issue witness summons to the General Manager/Front Office Manager, JW Marriot Bengaluru Prestige Golfshire Resort & Spa, Nandi Hills Road Karahalli Post, Kundana - Hobli, Bengaluru-562 162, to preserve and produce the documents mentioned in this order on 03.12.2025, through court post and mail, if complied. Devanahalli Taluk, Returnable by 03.12.2025.” 6. 1 & 2 during their stay. Issue witness summons to the General Manager/Front Office Manager, JW Marriot Bengaluru Prestige Golfshire Resort & Spa, Nandi Hills Road Karahalli Post, Kundana - Hobli, Bengaluru-562 162, to preserve and produce the documents mentioned in this order on 03.12.2025, through court post and mail, if complied. Devanahalli Taluk, Returnable by 03.12.2025.” 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a third party and on the relevant day, along with respondent Nos.2 and 3, about 25 other persons had gone to the resort. It is contended that by filing the present application, respondent No.1 is seeking details of all other persons who visited the resort, which is irrelevant for consideration of the matrimonial dispute between respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is further submitted that the impugned order amounts to violation of the petitioner’s right to privacy. In support of his contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Sachin Arora v. Manju Arora , (2023) SCC OnLine Del 2692. 7. He has further relied upon the judgment of this Court in Vishwas Setty vs. Preethi K. Rao , (2022) SCC OnLine Kar 1597 , wherein a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court has relied up on paragraphs 10, 11, 12, and 13, which read as under: “10. The issue would now be whether the order would violate the right to privacy of the petitioner. As stated earlier, the petitioner is not a party to the proceedings. The allegation of the husband is that the wife has illicit relationship with the petitioner. The petition for divorce is not filed by the husband. It is the wife who initiates Matrimonial Case No. 556 of 2018 against the husband seeking annulment of marriage. on the ground of cruelty. 11. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd. respondent is that he wants his wife, there is child born from the wedlock and child's future is in jeopardy due to the act of the wife in having relationship with the petitioner. If this was the intention of the husband, he would not have waited for four long years as on date, in preferring a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights. He wants to fight the matrimonial case instituted by the wife for divorce and does not want to file a case for restitution of conjugal rights. If this was the intention of the husband, he would not have waited for four long years as on date, in preferring a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights. He wants to fight the matrimonial case instituted by the wife for divorce and does not want to file a case for restitution of conjugal rights. Therefore, the intention of the husband is only to prove alleged adultery on the part of the wife for which reason the tower details of the third party cannot be permitted to be divulged. It would undoubtedly violate the right to privacy of the petitioner who is not a party, who is not put on notice and whose defence is not permitted to be projected even. Therefore, permitting tower details of the petitioner would be contrary to law. without him being in the know of any proceedings between the husband and the wife, but only on an allegation of the husband that the wife is in illicit relationship with the petitioner. 12. Insofar as the judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/husband are concerned, in the case of NIRACHAND SRINIVAS MANAGAONKAR (supra), the issue was whether the wife who had committed a wrong can take advantage of her own. wrong. The learned counsel for the husband seeks to press this judgment into service for the reason, that the wife having had relationship with the petitioner has committed wrong and if she has committed a wrong can she be permitted to take advantage of her own wrong. The judgment is inapplicable on the face of it. The facts of the case at hand and what is challenged before this Court has nothing to do with the findings in the judgment supra. The next judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi in the case of DEEPTI KAPUR though refers to the judgment in the case of JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY, holds that call details between the wife and her friend were necessary for a resolution of the dispute, and permits the same, would again be inapplicable to the facts of the case at hand. In the case therein the husband had clandestinely recorded conversation between the wife and her friend in which the husband had alleged that she has spoken highly derogatory about the family of the husband. In the case therein the husband had clandestinely recorded conversation between the wife and her friend in which the husband had alleged that she has spoken highly derogatory about the family of the husband. This was permitted to be placed on record as electronic evidence, notwithstanding the fact that the conversation was with the friend, a third party. The inapplicability of the said case, to the case at hand is that the conversation between the wife and her friend had already been recorded by the husband and it was a relevant fact to be brought in, in a case instituted by the husband seeking annulment of marriage, on the ground that the wife and her friend have been speaking in the manner which would not be conducive to continue the family relationship. Therefore, the said production of the compact disc was permitted as it was relevant for divorce proceedings. The said judgment is again, on the face of it, inapplicable to the facts of the case. 13. In the case at hand, tower details of the petitioner is permitted to be taken and produced. It is for the first time, the petitioner comes into the picture merely on an allegation of illicit relationship. He is a third party to these proceedings. Third party's privacy cannot be permitted to be violated on the specious plea of the husband that he wants to prove illicit relationship between the petitioner and the wife. It is trite that right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty. guaranteed to the citizens of the Country under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is a right to be 'let alone'. A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage and other incidental relationships. Informational privacy also forms an integral part of right to privacy. Therefore, the order which directs tower details. of the petitioner to be placed before the Court in a proceeding, which he is not even a party, undoubtedly violates informational privacy.” 8. Based on the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel submits that the Court ought not to have passed such an order, because of this impugned order, details pertaining to 25 persons who were present at the resort are required to be placed before the Court. 9. Based on the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel submits that the Court ought not to have passed such an order, because of this impugned order, details pertaining to 25 persons who were present at the resort are required to be placed before the Court. 9. It is further submitted that, in the impugned order, it is observed that in the CCTV footage, the faces of third parties shall be blurred; however, no such observation is found in the operative portion of the order. Learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to page 37, paragraph 19 of the petition. He submits that in the petition itself it is stated that respondent Nos.2 and 3 had travelled to Bombay and Pune, but no details in that regard were sought. Though I.A. No.7 has been filed seeking details of the booking and other particulars, the CCTV footage was not sought therein. However, the CCTV footage was not sought for in the said application. It is submitted that the application has been filed only with an intention to blackmail third parties and to compel a settlement between the disputing parties. It is further submitted that similar matters are pending consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court as to whether such information can be directed to be furnished and whether CCTV footage containing the details of the third parties can be sought for by litigating parties, when the information pertains to persons who are not parties to the proceedings. 10. It is submitted that the issue as to whether CCTV footage can be summoned or not, is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 11. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1–wife submits that the counsel who is appearing before this Court is also representing respondent No.2–husband. The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of a friend of the husband, who is a third party to the proceedings. It is submitted that this clearly demonstrates collusion between the parties. According to learned counsel, the husband does not want the CCTV footage to be brought on record and therefore, the husband has set up the petitioner to file the present application. It is submitted that unless and until all the relevant records are placed before the Court, it would be difficult for the wife to establish that the husband is living in an adulterous relationship. It is submitted that unless and until all the relevant records are placed before the Court, it would be difficult for the wife to establish that the husband is living in an adulterous relationship. The Family Court has already clarified that the images of other persons appearing in the CCTV footage shall be blurred and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. It is submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition, and if such petitions are allowed, it gives rise to multiplicity of litigation by parties who have nothing to do with the matrimonial dispute that is pending before the Court. 13. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. The petitioner is a third party. According to the petitioner, if the CCTV footage and other reliefs sought in IA No.6 filed by the wife are placed on record, it would amount to a violation of the petitioner’s right to privacy. The petitioner submits that a total of 25 persons had gone to the resort. He contends that if all details, particularly pertaining to the room of respondent No.2, are disclosed, it would violate his privacy. According to him, this application is filed by the wife only with an intention to settle the disputes between the wife and respondent No.2. 14. This Court has perused the order passed by the Family Court. In a matrimonial case filed on the ground of adultery, the burden lies on the wife to prove her allegations, and evidence such as the CCTV footage may be required for this purpose. Interestingly, an advocate appearing for the husband in other proceedings has come before this Court representing a third party i.e., a friend of the husband. 15. Privacy of the third parties must be balanced with the necessity of evidence for adjudication. Further the Court shall balance the privacy rights of third parties by reasonable safeguards. This aspect is considered by the Court and Court observed that their faces shall be blurred. It is the apprehension of the petitioner that it is not reflected in the operative portion. Hence, the Court is passing the following directions. Further the Court shall balance the privacy rights of third parties by reasonable safeguards. This aspect is considered by the Court and Court observed that their faces shall be blurred. It is the apprehension of the petitioner that it is not reflected in the operative portion. Hence, the Court is passing the following directions. ORDER: i. Guest Registration Forms, visitor entry, logs and copies of identification proofs submitted at the time of check-in during such stay pertaining to the husband and the paramour shall be placed before the Court. ii. CCTV footage for the period from 03.10.2025 to 05.10.2025 covering the common areas of the premises, including but not limited to the corridors, lobbies and other areas in the vicinity of the room allotted to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 during their stay, shall be produced. iii. It is clarified that in this CCTV footage, the faces of all persons other than the husband and the paramour shall be blurred. iv. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed. v. All I.As. in the writ petition shall stand closed.