The Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay, has ruled that unverified social media text messages devoid of mandatory statutory certification cannot be admitted or relied upon to establish that a wife is “living in adultery” so as to deny her maintenance. Affirming an order of the Family Court that granted maintenance to an estranged wife, the Court held that the statutory bar requires clear and cogent proof of a continuous, habitual course of adulterous conduct, which cannot be inferred from mere conversational interactions or unsubstantiated suspicions.
Background of the Case
The criminal revision arose out of a matrimonial dispute between the revisionist husband and his wife (Opposite Party No. 2). Following matrimonial discord, the parties began residing separately. The wife subsequently instituted maintenance proceedings under provisions akin to Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, stating that she was unable to maintain herself and that her husband, despite possessing sufficient means, had neglected and refused to provide for her sustenance.
On October 1, 2025, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal situated at Chandausi (in Case No. 924 of 2024) allowed the wife’s application and awarded maintenance in her favor. Challenging the legality, propriety, and correctness of this maintenance order, the husband approached the High Court by filing a criminal revision under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Arguments Before the High Court
Appearing for the revisionist husband, counsel Devdeep Malviya contended that the wife was disqualified from claiming maintenance on statutory grounds. The husband asserted that his wife had departed from the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and was “living in adultery” with an advocate. To substantiate this allegation before the court, the revisionist relied on printouts of electronic records comprising alleged Instagram chats between his wife and the advocate, arguing that these conversations proved an adulterous relationship.
Opposing the revision, the learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) representing the State, alongside counsel Ashutosh Upadhyay appearing for the wife, submitted that maintenance laws serve as beneficent social-welfare legislation enacted to shield destitute spouses from vagrancy. They argued that the phrase “living in adultery” requires proof of a continuous course of conduct rather than isolated or casual interactions. Crucially, the respondents contended that the Instagram chat printouts lacked mandatory statutory certification under evidence laws, rendering them inadmissible as evidence to deprive a destitute wife of maintenance.
The Court’s Analysis and Precedents
Formulating the primary issue, the High Court examined the scope and standard of proof required to establish the disqualification of “living in adultery” in maintenance proceedings. The Court reiterated that maintenance provisions are designed to prevent destitution and ensure that individuals have the means to lead a dignified life. Citing the Supreme Court judgments in Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq (1987) 1 SCC 624 and Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, Justice Upadhyay observed that these summary, quasi-civil proceedings are oriented toward social justice and must be construed liberally, with the legal burden of establishing any statutory disqualification resting entirely on the party asserting it.
Construing the statutory exception, the Court emphasized the specific phrasing chosen by the legislature:
“The legislative mandate requires careful interpretation of the phrase “living in adultery.” The terminology consciously employed by the legislature is “living in”, which fundamentally denotes a continuous, ongoing, and habitual course of adulterous conduct. It does not encompass a single, fleeting lapse, nor can it be inferred from mere conversational interactions, professional associations, or unsubstantiated suspicions. For a husband to successfully non-suit a wife’s claim for maintenance at the threshold, he must present clear and cogent evidence that ex-facie establishes this continuous adulterous conduct.”
Turning to the admissibility of the electronic records, the Court underscored that digital evidence must strictly satisfy the requirements of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Referencing the three-judge bench ruling of the Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC, which reaffirmed the principles laid down in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer 2014 (10) SCC 473, the Court reiterated that statutory certification is a mandatory condition precedent for admitting secondary evidence of electronic records due to the inherent vulnerability of digital data.
Because the Instagram chat records submitted by the husband were not supported by the mandatory statutory certificate, the Court ruled them legally inadmissible. The Court further observed that even on their merits, such messages fall short of establishing adultery:
“Even if, for the sake of argument, the contents of the unverified chats were to be perused, mere text messages on a social media platform, without corroborative evidence of physical intimacy or cohabitation, are thoroughly insufficient to legally establish that the wife is continuously “living in adultery”. The burden lies heavily upon the revisionist to prove a continuous adulterous lifestyle, which he has failed to discharge.”
Decision
Finding no jurisdictional error, material irregularity, or perversity in the Family Court’s assessment, the High Court held that the trial court rightly prioritized the beneficent purpose of the maintenance provisions. Concluding that the revision lacked merit, Justice Upadhyay dismissed the criminal revision and affirmed the Family Court’s order dated October 1, 2025.
Case Title: Shobhit Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 7800 of 2025
Bench: Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay
Date: September 29, 2026
