The Allahabad High Court has held that a specifically named person accused of having an adulterous relationship with a woman must be given an opportunity to defend himself before a court records an adverse finding against him in maintenance proceedings. The Court also directed that the issue of framing a clear procedure for issuing notice to such persons be placed before the Chief Justice for consideration.
Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla dismissed a criminal revision challenging a Family Court order directing payment of monthly maintenance to a wife and her minor son. The Court upheld the order passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 3, Kanpur Nagar.
Background
The criminal revision challenged the Family Court's order dated March 19, 2025, which directed the husband to pay ₹20,000 per month to his wife and ₹10,000 per month to their minor son, from the date of the maintenance application.
The husband argued that the Family Court had incorrectly assessed his financial position and failed to properly consider his evidence. He also alleged that his wife was living in adultery and relied on photographs and electronic material to support his claim.
Justice Shukla examined whether the photographs could establish the allegation and whether the person specifically named as the alleged third party, Sumit Tripathi, had been given an opportunity to respond.
The Court found that the photographs had not been satisfactorily authenticated. Their source and genuineness remained unverified, and no witness had been identified to establish that they were original and unaltered.
The Court observed:
“The question of admissibility or reception of electronic material is distinct from the question of its authenticity, reliability and evidentiary value.”
The Bench further held that a court cannot record an adverse finding against an identifiable person without giving that individual an opportunity to defend himself.
It explained:
“The summary nature of a proceeding does not exclude the application of the fundamental principles of natural justice.”
The Court noted that the alleged third party had not been given notice despite being specifically named. It therefore declined to accept the adultery allegation as a ground for interfering with the maintenance order.
The High Court refused to admit additional evidence at the revision stage and found no legally sustainable reason to disturb the Family Court's decision. It dismissed the criminal revision and affirmed the maintenance order.
The Court also directed the Registrar General to place the matter before the Chief Justice to consider framing rules governing notice to a specifically named alleged co-adulterer in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC.
