Court Rules Against Unnotified Adulterer Allegations, Calls for Procedural Reforms to Protect Reputation in Maintenance Proceedings
The Allahabad High Court, in a significant judgment dated October 13, 2026, dismissed a criminal revision challenging a maintenance order passed by the Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, reinforcing key principles of natural justice in matrimonial law. The court emphasized that while proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) are summary and aimed at social justice, allegations of adultery against an identifiable third party cannot be adjudicated without affording the alleged individual an opportunity to be heard.
The revisionist, Gaurav Srivastav, contested the Family Court's order directing him to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 20,000 to his wife and Rs. 10,000 to their minor son. He sought to challenge the order on multiple grounds, including an alleged adulterous relationship of his wife with one Sumit Tripathi, who was specifically named in the pleadings. The revisionist also attempted to rely on electronic evidence such as photographs to substantiate his claims.
The High Court scrutinized these claims and clarified that although Family Courts possess a wide latitude under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, to receive any material that may aid in dispute resolution-even if not strictly admissible under the Indian Evidence Act-the mere receipt of such electronic evidence does not establish its authenticity or reliability. The Court noted that in the instant case, the photographs were neither satisfactorily authenticated nor proven to be original, and some appeared to be manipulated composites.
Crucially, the Court underscored the fundamental principle of natural justice embodied in the maxim audi alteram partem ("hear the other side"). It held that recording an adverse finding of adultery against a specifically named third party without giving that person notice or an opportunity to defend himself would violate this principle and impinge upon the right to reputation-a part of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Drawing parallels with procedural safeguards in matrimonial proceedings under the Hindu Marriage and Divorce Rules, 1956, the Court observed that while Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not expressly provide for impleadment or notice to alleged co-adulterers, the rationale for such procedural protections is equally compelling. The Court directed the Registrar General to bring this procedural lacuna to the attention of the Chief Justice for consideration of framing appropriate rules or extending the existing principles of Rule 6(a) of the Hindu Marriage and Divorce Rules, with necessary modifications, to Section 125 proceedings.
The revisionist's plea for admission of additional evidence at the revisional stage was also declined, as the materials lacked authentication and the alleged co-adulterer had not been afforded an opportunity to respond.
On challenges related to assessment of income, financial status, and the wife's separate residence, the High Court found no jurisdictional error or perversity in the Family Court's order and affirmed the maintenance directive.
This judgment reiterates the delicate balance courts must maintain between speedy social justice and safeguarding procedural fairness and individual dignity, especially when third parties' reputations are implicated in summary maintenance proceedings.
Bottom Line:
Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Allegation of adultery against wife - Even in summary maintenance proceedings, where husband specifically names an alleged co-adulterer and seeks an adverse finding of adultery, principles of natural justice require that such person be afforded an opportunity of hearing before any finding prejudicial to his reputation is recorded - Electronic material like photographs may be received by Family Court under Section 14 of Family Courts Act, but mere reception does not prove authenticity, reliability or truth of contents - Additional evidence at revisional stage is discretionary and can be declined where material is unauthenticated and unnecessary.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Section 14 Family Courts Act, 1984; Section 65B Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Sections 391 and 401 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Rule 6(a) Hindu Marriage and Divorce Rules, 1956
Gaurav Srivastav v. State of U.P., (All) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2996218
