Can Instagram Chats Prove Adultery? Here's What the Allahabad High Court Said in a Maintenance Case
The Allahabad High Court ruled that unverified Instagram chats alone cannot prove a wife is 'living in adultery' to deny her maintenance, requiring corroborative evidence. The husband had approached the High Court challenging the grant of maintenance, arguing that his wife was disqualified from receiving any financial support because she was allegedly engaged in an adulterous relationship with an advocate.
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a husband cannot rely solely on unverified social media text messages to claim that his wife is continuously “living in adultery” in an effort to deny her maintenance. The ruling was delivered by Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay while dismissing a husband’s plea that challenged a family court order directing him to pay maintenance to his estranged wife.
The Challenge and Court Observations
The husband had approached the High Court challenging the grant of maintenance, arguing that his wife was disqualified from receiving any financial support because she was allegedly engaged in an adulterous relationship with an advocate, reports Bar and Bench. To substantiate his claim, he presented printouts of Instagram chats between his wife and the individual. Allahabad High Court Directs Police Protection for Interfaith Lesbian Couple; Here's Why.
Rejecting the sufficiency of these digital logs, the Court noted that conversational text messages, absent any corroborative proof of physical intimacy or cohabitation, fail to establish an adulterous lifestyle. In its order, the bench stated: “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'.”
Defining 'Living in Adultery' Under Law
The Court elaborated that the legal threshold of “living in adultery” - which serves as a ground to deny maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) - denotes a habitual, continuous, and ongoing course of 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,” the Court added. UP Govt Turning Goonda Act Into Weapon of Harassment: Allahabad High Court.
Furthermore, the bench highlighted that electronic records require strict verification and mandatory statutory certification under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act due to the inherent vulnerabilities associated with digital data. Because the husband failed to produce the required certification alongside the Instagram printouts, the evidence lacked admissibility. Finding no legal infirmity in the lower court's decision, the High Court upheld the maintenance order and dismissed the husband's revision petition.
(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on Oct 03, 2026 10:09 PM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).
