Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay struck down a husband’s petition on September 29, finding the printed Instagram messages offered no proof of a continuous adulterous lifestyle.
The husband had asked the family court in Sambhal to cancel a maintenance order, arguing that his wife lived in adultery. He presented only screenshots of private conversations with an advocate, hoping they would satisfy the burden of proof.
The Allahabad High Court clarified that living in adultery, under Section 125 of the CrPC and its replacement Section 144 of the BNSS, requires evidence of ongoing, habitual conduct—not a single fleeting interaction. The court explained that the term “continuous” means a sustained pattern, not isolated chats.
Moreover, Section 65‑B of the Indian Evidence Act mandates statutory certification for electronic data. The husband had failed to provide the required verification, rendering the digital evidence inadmissible.
By dismissing the challenge, the court upheld the family court’s decision that the husband must continue paying maintenance. Future litigants will now know that text‑based evidence alone will not suffice to overturn a maintenance order.