Printouts of Instagram chats, filed without the mandatory electronic-evidence certificate, cannot be used to strip a wife of maintenance on the ground that she is “living in adultery”, the Allahabad High Court has held, adding that the phrase demands proof of a continuous adulterous relationship, not messages on a social media app.
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has upheld a Family Court order granting maintenance to a wife, rejecting her husband’s plea that she was disentitled because she was “living in adultery” with an advocate, a claim he sought to prove solely through Instagram chat printouts that lacked a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act [SK v. State of U.P. and Another].
Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay, in a reserved judgment delivered on September 29, 2026, dismissed the husband’s criminal revision under Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS against the October 1, 2025 order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi.
Background of the case
The marriage was admitted, and the couple had separated after marital discord. The wife sought maintenance, pleading that she could not support herself while her husband, despite having sufficient means, had neglected her. The Family Court allowed her application in Case No. 924 of 2024.
Before the High Court, the husband argued that his wife had left the matrimonial home without sufficient reason and was living in adultery with an advocate, which statutorily barred her claim. In support, he relied on printouts of Instagram chats allegedly exchanged between the two. The wife and the State countered that maintenance is beneficent social-welfare legislation, that “living in adultery” means a continuous course of conduct rather than isolated interactions or suspicion, and that unverified chats without statutory certification are inadmissible. The allegation was never established in evidence, and the Court made no finding that it was true.
What ‘living in adultery’ means
Noting that maintenance proceedings are summary and civil in nature, and that, while the standard is not proof beyond reasonable doubt, the burden of proving a statutory disqualification lies entirely on the party alleging it, the Court turned to the words chosen by the legislature:
“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.”
Chats inadmissible without certificate
Relying on Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, the Court held that a Section 65-B certificate is a mandatory condition precedent to admitting secondary evidence of an electronic record, given the ever-present risk to the authenticity of digital material. Since the husband’s chats carried no such certificate, treating them as admissible would be “entirely incorrect in law”.
The Court went further, holding that the chats would not have helped the husband even if they were looked at:
“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.”
Revision dismissed
Citing Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq and Rajnesh v. Neha on the liberal, social-justice reading of maintenance law, the Court found that the Family Court had rightly evaluated the material and prioritised the beneficent purpose of the provision. Finding no jurisdictional error, material irregularity or perversity, it dismissed the revision and affirmed the maintenance order.
Why the judgment matters
Screenshots and chat printouts are increasingly the first line of attack in maintenance disputes. The ruling sets two hurdles for a husband seeking to invoke the adultery bar: the electronic record must clear the Section 65-B threshold to be admissible at all, and even admissible messages will not suffice without evidence of a continuing relationship such as cohabitation.
Case Title: SK v. State of U.P. and Another [Criminal Revision No. 7800 of 2025]
Bench: Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay, Allahabad High Court
Date of Judgment: September 29, 2026
For the Revisionist: Devdeep Malviya
For the Opposite Parties: Ashutosh Upadhyay and Sujeet Kumar; Additional Government Advocate for the State