How can I get hotel monitoring when my husband is derailed (can I apply to the court to get the man's room opening record? )

Recently, a lady encountered such a problem:

She sued her husband for divorce, and learned from her friends that her husband had cheated on her many times, but the hotel refused to cooperate with her to provide her with specific information about her husband's room opening, so she wanted to apply to the court for relevant information and evidence from the hotel, but the court did not start the procedure. I don't know if the court did this right.

This problem actually involves the rule of burden of proof in a law. As we all know, the usual rule of burden of proof is "whoever advocates gives evidence", so the plaintiff in a case generally has the obligation to prove his own claims.

However, in reality, it often happens that the evidence in favor of the plaintiff is not in the hands of the plaintiff, but in the hands of official institutions or third-party units, and when the official institutions or third-party units do not cooperate, the plaintiff will be in an embarrassing position of being unable to prove.

This situation is obviously not conducive to the court to find out the facts and fully protect the rights and interests of the parties, so the law gives relief channels, that is, the parties can apply to the court for investigation and evidence collection in these units.

Legal basis:

Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Law: The people's court shall investigate and collect evidence that the parties and their agents ad litem cannot collect by themselves due to objective reasons, or that the people's court considers necessary for the trial of a case.

Article 95 of the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law: The people's court shall not accept the evidence that the parties apply for investigation and collection has nothing to do with the facts to be proved, has no probative significance for the facts to be proved, or does not need investigation and collection.

According to the above provisions, we can see that the two prerequisites for applying for court investigation and evidence collection are:

Objectively, I can't receive it myself;

These evidences directly affect the determination of the facts of the case, so it is necessary to collect them.

Back to the topic, suppose the woman highly suspects that the man has cheated on others many times, but suffers from the right to ask the hotel to cooperate with the relevant evidence. Then, in divorce cases, can the court be asked to collect the opening records from the hotel ex officio to prove that the relationship between the two parties has broken down or the other party is at fault?

We will review them one by one according to the legal provisions listed above:

First of all, this kind of evidence is stored in a third-party unit, that is, a hotel, which often refuses to provide it to others on the grounds of customer privacy. For the woman, it is objectively impossible for her to accept it.

Secondly, can the fact that the house is derailed be used as a basis for judging whether the relationship between the two parties is broken or the other party is at fault? There are different views on this in practice, but generally speaking, the fact of derailment is one of the factors to consider whether the relationship is stable or not, and the court should take it according to the application and authority.

However, in reality, the woman's direct application often does not enable the court to initiate investigation and evidence collection procedures ex officio. This is because the court should be cautious about breaking through the privacy protection of others, considering that other people's opening records belong to the privacy category. It is not excluded that the woman's application behavior is only based on subjective speculation and suspicion. Obviously, this situation should not easily start the investigation and evidence collection procedure that breaks through the privacy of others.

This tells us that in divorce cases, if the court is expected to investigate and collect evidence from the other party's derailment records, it is obliged to provide necessary preliminary evidence and clues, such as SMS, WeChat records, hotel monitoring, and consumer expenditure lists.

Only in this case, the court should fulfill its obligation to investigate and collect evidence ex officio in accordance with the provisions of relevant laws and judicial interpretations.

What do you think of this? Welcome to leave a message to express your opinion.