Can an adverse finding of adultery be recorded against a named man who was never heard? The Allahabad High Court says he must first get a hearing, and has asked the Chief Justice to consider framing rules for notice to an alleged co-adulterer in Section 125 CrPC maintenance proceedings [XYZ v. State of U.P. and 2 Others]
Prayagraj: Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla, sitting as a single Judge Bench of the Allahabad High Court, passed the order on Tuesday, 13 October 2026, as he dismissed a husband’s criminal revision against a Family Court maintenance order.
A hearing before any adverse finding
A named and identifiable alleged co-adulterer, the Court held, has to be given an opportunity of hearing before an adverse finding is recorded against him. Such a finding can damage his reputation and dignity, which the Court linked to Article 21 of the Constitution. It drew on the maxim from the Katyayana Smriti that the opposing party must be heard after the first party, and on the principle of audi alteram partem. The Court clarified that it was not holding that an alleged co-adulterer must necessarily be impleaded in every Section 125 CrPC proceeding; its concern was an adverse finding made without hearing him.
Over to the Chief Justice
The Registrar General has been directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice for consideration and directions. Two options were raised: framing rules on impleadment or notice to such a person, or extending to Section 125 proceedings, with suitable modifications, the principle of Rule 6(a) of the Hindu Marriage and Divorce Rules, 1956, which provides for joining an alleged adulterer as a co-respondent.
The revision and the husband’s contention
A Family Court order of March 2025 under Section 125 CrPC had directed the husband to pay Rs 20,000 per month to his wife and Rs 10,000 per month to their minor son, from the date of the application. In revision, he argued that his wife was living in adultery with a specifically named person, that she was therefore living separately without sufficient reason and was not entitled to maintenance, and he also challenged the assessment of his income and the amount awarded. The allegation of adultery is the husband’s contention and is untested.
What Section 125(4) says, and what it leaves out
Under Section 125(4) CrPC, no wife is entitled to maintenance if she is living in adultery, if she refuses without sufficient reason to live with her husband, or if the spouses are living separately by mutual consent. Section 125 says nothing about impleading or notifying a person alleged to be the wife’s paramour, which is the gap the Court examined.
Photographs and electronic material
The husband relied on photographs and electronic material, which the Family Court had declined to rely on because he gave no certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. He invoked Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, but the High Court said the power to receive material is distinct from its authenticity, reliability and evidentiary value. It noted the Supreme Court’s decision in Himanshu Chordia v. State of Rajasthan (2026) and said it does not make every electronic record conclusive proof or remove the need to assess authenticity.
The Court found that the source and creation of the photographs had not been established and that no witness had verified them as original and unaltered; some images, it said, appeared duplicated, similar or composite. They might show some association but could not alone establish adultery. The husband’s request to adduce additional evidence in revision under Sections 391 and 401 CrPC was refused, as that power is discretionary, and the Court dismissed the revision and upheld the maintenance order.
Why the order matters
Allegations of adultery against a wife are a routine feature of maintenance cases, and the order points out that a third person can be named, and adversely affected, without ever being heard. Whether rules on notice are framed now rests with the Chief Justice. Until then, the ruling stands as a caution that a finding of adultery against a named person calls for a hearing, and that photographs without proof of origin carry little weight.
Case Title: XYZ v. State of U.P. and 2 Others
Bench: Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla, Allahabad High Court
Date of Order: October 13, 2026