Husband can rely on social media evidence of wife's adultery to oppose interim maintenance: P&H High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that the evidence taken from social media by a husband regarding wife's adultery cannot be ignored while deciding the wife's plea for interim maintenance.

Justice Sumeet Goel reasoned that a family court is well within its jurisdiction to look into any evidence which in its judicial discretion may be essential for adjudicating the case before it.

“The material pertaining to social media etc., produced by the husband, in order to prove adultery of wife, can be looked into by the Court at the stage of adjudication of interim maintenance and expense of proceeding (litigation expenses),” the Court ruled.

This would be irrespective of the fact whether or not such material fulfils the provisions of Indian Evidence Act and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, the Court clarified.

“Interpretation of law ought to be in accordance with the veritable tenets of justice, equity and good conscience & must not be shackled by obsolete interpretations(s) that have lost their relevance in the present era. Evidentiary material emanating from social media timelines and profiles can also be relied upon by rival parties to substantial their case,” the Court said.

Justice Goel added that the current social life is extensively and openly engaged on social media platforms and apps like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and WhatsApp. 

The social network footprints including photographs, textual exchanges can be well-mapped for evidentiary purposes and courts can take judicial notice of the same, the single-judge said.

The Court was hearing a revision petition filed a husband against the family court’s order directing him to pay an interim maintenance of ₹3,000 to his wife per month and one time litigation expenses of ₹10,000. 

The counsel representing the husband alleged that she was living in adultery and thus was not entitled to interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

He referred to certain photographs to claim that she was either married or living in with some other man. A copy of a petition filed by the wife was also produced to show that she herself had claimed to be living with that man.

However, the counsel representing the wife argued that the plea of adultery cannot be raised at the stage of interim maintenance. It was also contended that the husband had no cogent evidence to prove the claim of adultery.

After hearing both parties, the Court held that a husband can raise the plea of adultery by wife to oppose the petition for grant of interim maintenance and litigation expenses.

“The statutory scheme reflects a balanced approach, ensuring that justice is not only served to the wife but also does not unduly burden the husband when marital obligations are breached by the wife's conduct,” it remarked.

It added that both the spouses have certain obligations towards each other and enjoy equal rights. 

"Just as a wife is not a helpless person only deserving of benevolent commiseration from her spouse, a husband is not to be assumed as a sumpter to bear the financial duties under any or all circumstances, on account of being a male. In other words, if the implacable cause of the collapse in the marriage is adultery committed by the wife, it would be sans reasonableness to shackle the husband with obligations of maintenance," the Court said.

With regard to the nature of evidence in such cases, the Court observed that direct proof is generally difficult to get and therefore, reliance on circumstantial evidence is often sought for.

“Just as Shakespeare advised “Let every eye negotiate for itself/And trust no agent…” (Much Ado About Nothing: Act II, Scene I), all the actions of adultery can be perceived, deciphered and ascertained by discerning observations within the context,” it added.

On evidence taken from social media or messaging apps, the Court observed that even though it is possible to manipulate or morph photos, all such material cannot be ignored outrightly on such a supposition. 

However, the Bench also cautioned that a court ought to record cogent reasons when it deems it appropriate to take into account such material at the stage of interim maintenance. 

In the present case, after looking at the photographs presented by the husband, the Court opined that they reflected some kind of relationship between his wife and the other man.

It also took into account her own admission that she was living with that man. The Court said there was no plausible explanation regarding the photographs and in what capacity she was living with that man.

Accordingly, it ruled that she was not entitled to any interim maintenance and litigation expenses from the husband.

Thus, the revision petition was allowed and the family court order was set aside.

Advocate Pardhuman Garg represented the husband.

Advocates Simranjeet S Sarwara and Khushika Setia represented the wife.