Social media conversations, without stronger evidence showing physical intimacy or cohabitation, cannot by themselves establish that a wife is continuously living in an adulterous relationship, the Allahabad High Court has held.
Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay was hearing a challenge filed by a husband against an order directing him to pay maintenance to his wife. The husband claimed that she was disqualified from receiving maintenance because she was allegedly “living in adultery”.
To support the allegation, he relied on printouts of Instagram conversations which he claimed were exchanged between his wife and an advocate with whom she was allegedly involved.
The High Court, however, found that the messages did not establish the allegation to the required legal standard.
The Court noted that even if the contents of the unverified conversations were considered, text exchanges on a social media platform, without independent evidence of physical intimacy or cohabitation, could not establish that the woman was continuously living in adultery.
The Court stressed that the expression “living in adultery”, used as a ground to deny maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and its corresponding provision, Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, refers to an ongoing and habitual course of adulterous conduct.
A single incident, an isolated lapse or ordinary conversations cannot automatically be treated as proof of such conduct, the Court said. Professional interactions or unsubstantiated suspicions also cannot replace clear evidence when a maintenance claim is sought to be defeated on this ground.
The Court further highlighted the evidentiary requirements surrounding electronic material. Digital records can be susceptible to alteration or other forms of manipulation and therefore must satisfy the applicable requirements for their admissibility.
In the case before it, the husband had not furnished the certification required for relying on the electronic material under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Finding that the Instagram conversations were insufficient to substantiate the allegation that the wife was “living in adultery”, the High Court declined to interfere with the family court’s order granting her maintenance.
The husband’s challenge was consequently dismissed.