The Allahabad High Court has clarified an important principle in maintenance law: a husband cannot rely solely on social media messages to establish that his wife is continuously living in adultery and thereby defeat her claim for maintenance. In a judgment delivered on 29 September 2026, Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay held that unverified Instagram chats, without proper legal certification and without corroborative evidence of physical intimacy or cohabitation, fall short of the strict standard required by law.
The ruling came while dismissing a criminal revision filed by a husband from Sambhal who had challenged a Family Court order directing him to pay maintenance to his wife. The Family Court at Chandausi had earlier granted the wife maintenance. The husband approached the High Court arguing that she was disentitled to any support because she was living in adultery with an advocate. His primary evidence consisted of printouts of Instagram conversations allegedly exchanged between his wife and the advocate.
Legal Standard for Denying Maintenance on Grounds of Adultery
Under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, now reflected in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, a wife who is living in adultery is not entitled to claim maintenance. The High Court emphasised that the legislature deliberately used the phrase “living in adultery.” This language denotes a continuous, ongoing and habitual course of adulterous conduct. It does not cover a single or fleeting lapse, nor can it be inferred from mere conversational interactions, professional associations or unsubstantiated suspicions.
Justice Upadhyay observed that for a husband to successfully non-suit a wife’s claim for maintenance at the threshold, he must present clear and cogent evidence that establishes this continuous adulterous lifestyle. The burden is deliberately high because maintenance provisions are rooted in social welfare and aim to prevent destitution.
Why Instagram Chats Fell Short
The Court examined the husband’s reliance on Instagram printouts on two levels. First, it addressed the issue of admissibility. Electronic records such as social media chats must ordinarily be accompanied by the mandatory statutory certification under the evidence law. In the absence of such certification, the chats were held to be inadmissible. Treating uncertified digital material as reliable evidence would be incorrect in law.
Second, the Court considered the content even on the assumption that the chats could be looked at. It held that mere text messages on a social media platform, without any corroborative evidence of physical intimacy or cohabitation, are thoroughly insufficient to prove that the wife is continuously living in adultery. Conversational exchanges, however suggestive they may appear to one party, do not by themselves establish the sustained physical relationship that the legal standard demands.
The judgment therefore drew a clear distinction between suspicion or informal digital communication on the one hand and legally admissible proof of continuous adulterous cohabitation on the other.
Context of the Case and the Court’s Approach
The husband had placed heavy reliance on the chats as the foundation of his defence. The wife’s side contended that the electronic material was unverified, lacked the required certification and could not form the basis for denying a destitute woman her statutory right to sustenance. The High Court agreed with this position after examining the record.
By dismissing the revision, the Court affirmed the Family Court’s order granting maintenance. The decision reinforces that maintenance proceedings are not to be derailed by unsubstantiated digital allegations. It also signals that courts will insist on proper evidentiary standards even when technology makes it easy to produce screenshots or chat printouts.
Broader Implications for Maintenance Litigation
The ruling has practical significance in an era when social media interactions are frequently cited in matrimonial disputes. Parties sometimes treat chat extracts as conclusive proof of misconduct. The Allahabad High Court has made clear that such material, standing alone, will not suffice to invoke the statutory bar against maintenance.
The judgment protects the welfare objective of maintenance law. A wife who is unable to maintain herself should not be denied support on the basis of incomplete or improperly proved digital evidence. At the same time, the Court has left open the possibility that continuous adultery can still be established if a husband produces clear, cogent and legally admissible material demonstrating a sustained course of conduct, including evidence of physical intimacy or cohabitation.
The decision also underscores the importance of complying with the rules governing electronic evidence. Printouts without the mandatory certificate carry little or no evidentiary weight. Parties and counsel must therefore ensure that digital records are properly authenticated if they wish to rely on them in court.
A Balanced and Principled Approach
Justice Upadhyay’s order reflects a careful balance. It recognises the serious nature of an allegation of continuous adultery while refusing to lower the standard of proof simply because the evidence is digital. It insists on corroboration beyond text messages and demands that the continuous and habitual character of the alleged conduct be demonstrated.
For lower courts handling maintenance claims, the judgment provides clear guidance: social media chats may form part of a larger body of evidence, but they cannot by themselves discharge the husband’s burden. For litigants, it serves as a reminder that serious allegations require serious proof meeting the standards of the law of evidence.
In dismissing the husband’s challenge, the Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that the right to maintenance is not easily displaced. Only clear, legally admissible and corroborative evidence of continuous adulterous living can defeat that right. Instagram chats alone do not meet that threshold.
Read more – grammarthink.com
