The Allahabad High Court has held that a husband cannot rely merely on social media conversations to establish that his wife is “living in adultery” and thereby disentitle her from receiving maintenance. It said online messages, in the absence of corroborative evidence indicating physical intimacy or cohabitation, cannot by themselves establish a continuous adulterous relationship.
Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay made the observation while dealing with a husband’s petition challenging an October 1, 2025, order of the family court at Chandausi in Sambhal granting maintenance to his wife. The High Court, in its September 29 judgment, dismissed the challenge after finding that the material relied upon by the husband was insufficient to establish the allegation.
Instagram chats cited
The husband had argued that his wife was not entitled to maintenance because she was allegedly living in adultery. To support his contention, he placed before the court printouts of Instagram conversations purportedly exchanged between his wife and an advocate with whom, he alleged, she was having an adulterous relationship.
The court was not persuaded by the material. It said that even if the contents of the unverified conversations were considered for the sake of argument, text messages exchanged through a social media platform, without corroborative evidence of physical intimacy or cohabitation, were insufficient to legally establish that the wife was continuously living in adultery.
Continuous conduct necessary
Explaining the legal threshold, the High Court said the expression “living in adultery” denotes a continuous, ongoing and habitual course of adulterous conduct. The concept cannot be stretched to cover a single or fleeting lapse, nor can such conduct be inferred merely from conversations, professional associations or unsubstantiated suspicions.
The court said that for a husband to successfully defeat his wife’s maintenance claim on this ground, he must produce clear and cogent evidence demonstrating a continuing adulterous relationship. The requirement assumes significance because “living in adultery” is a statutory ground for denying maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the corresponding Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Digital proof questioned
The High Court also examined the evidentiary value of the Instagram printouts. It observed that electronic material requires proper authentication because digital data is inherently susceptible to alteration and manipulation.
The court noted that the husband had not produced the statutory certification required for the electronic evidence he sought to rely upon. Consequently, the Instagram printouts could not acquire the evidentiary weight necessary to substantiate such a serious allegation.
Maintenance order upheld
After examining the record, the High Court concluded that the husband had failed to establish a continuous adulterous lifestyle on the part of his wife. The Instagram conversations, standing alone, did not satisfy the legal threshold required to deny her maintenance.
The court consequently dismissed the husband’s challenge and upheld the family court order directing him to pay maintenance to his wife, underscoring that allegations of adultery must rest on legally admissible and sufficiently corroborated evidence rather than suspicion or isolated online interactions.