The Allahabad High Court has held that mere Instagram conversations cannot, by themselves, establish that a wife is continuously “living in adultery” so as to deny her maintenance. The Court stressed that such an allegation requires clear and convincing material showing a continuing adulterous relationship.
Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay delivered the ruling while dismissing a criminal revision challenging an order of the Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi, which had granted maintenance to the wife.
Background
The marriage between the parties was undisputed. Following marital differences, they began living separately. The wife subsequently sought maintenance, stating that she could not support herself and that her husband, despite having sufficient means, had neglected to maintain her.
The husband opposed the maintenance claim by alleging that the wife had left the matrimonial home without sufficient reason and was “living in adultery” with an advocate. To support the allegation, reliance was placed mainly on printouts of Instagram chats allegedly exchanged between the wife and the advocate.
The High Court examined what the expression “living in adultery” requires in maintenance proceedings. It observed that the words indicate a continuous and habitual course of conduct rather than an isolated interaction or mere suspicion.
The Court stated:
“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.”
The Court further noted that maintenance provisions are intended to prevent destitution and are to be interpreted keeping their social-welfare purpose in view. The burden of proving a statutory disqualification, however, remained on the person alleging it.
The Court also examined the evidentiary value of the Instagram printouts. It noted that electronic evidence must satisfy the applicable statutory requirements for admissibility. In the present case, the chats were not supported by the mandatory certification referred to by the Court.
Even assuming the messages could be considered, the Court found that text exchanges alone, without corroborative evidence of physical intimacy or cohabitation, were insufficient to establish continuous “living in adultery.” The Court recorded:
“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".”
Finding no jurisdictional error, material irregularity or perversity in the Family Court's order, the Allahabad High Court declined to interfere with the maintenance order. The Court held that the revision had no merit and dismissed it.
The Family Court's order dated October 1, 2025, granting maintenance, was accordingly affirmed.
Case Details:
Case Title: X v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 7800 of 2025
Judge: Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay
Decision Date: September 29, 2026
