Court rules that "living in adultery" requires continuous conduct, electronic evidence must comply with Section 65-B of Evidence Act; mere social media messages insufficient to deny maintenance
In a significant judgment delivered on September 29, 2026, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by Shobhit Kumar challenging the Family Court's order granting maintenance to his wife, Deeksha Chaudhary. The husband had alleged that the wife was "living in adultery" with an advocate and thus disqualified from claiming maintenance. The High Court, however, held that mere Instagram chat printouts without mandatory certification under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, are inadmissible. Further, it clarified that the phrase "living in adultery" implies continuous and habitual adulterous conduct and cannot be established by isolated digital exchanges or unsubstantiated suspicion.
The case arose from matrimonial discord resulting in the parties living separately. The wife filed an application seeking maintenance, asserting her inability to sustain herself while the husband possessed sufficient means. The husband opposed the claim on two grounds: that the wife had left the matrimonial home without sufficient reason and that she was "living in adultery" with an advocate. He relied heavily on Instagram chat printouts between the wife and the alleged paramour as evidence.
The Family Court allowed the wife's maintenance application, and the husband moved the Allahabad High Court in revision. The High Court, presided over by Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay, thoroughly examined the scope of "living in adultery" under maintenance law and the evidentiary requirements for electronic records.
The Court emphasized that maintenance laws are social welfare provisions aimed at preventing destitution. These laws must be liberally interpreted in favor of the financially dependent spouse. The Court noted that the statutory disqualification on the ground of adultery requires clear, cogent, and continuous evidence of adulterous conduct and cannot be based on a single lapse, mere conversations, or suspicion.
On the admissibility of electronic evidence, the Court relied on landmark Supreme Court judgments including Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) and Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014), reiterating the mandatory requirement of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act for any electronic record to be admissible in evidence. The Instagram chats presented by the husband lacked such certification and therefore could not be considered.
Even on merits, the Court stated that unverified social media messages without corroboration of physical intimacy or cohabitation are insufficient to establish "living in adultery." Consequently, the Court upheld the Family Court's order allowing maintenance to the wife and dismissed the husband's revision petition.
This judgment reinforces the protective ambit of maintenance laws and sets a clear precedent on the evidentiary standards for electronic records in family law disputes, particularly those involving allegations of adultery.
Bottom Line:
Maintenance - Wife cannot be denied maintenance on mere allegation of adultery based on uncertified Instagram chats - "Living in adultery" means a continuous and habitual course of adulterous conduct and not isolated interactions or suspicion - Electronic record without mandatory certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act is inadmissible.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 438, 442), Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 65-B), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 125)
Shobhit Kumar v. State of U.P., (All) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2990775
