Instagram Chats Without Statutory Certification Not Admissible: Allahabad High Court Rejects Husband's Argument About Adultery By Wife

The Allahabad High Court was considering a revision filed by a man challenging the legality of the order of the Family Court allowing his wife's application for maintenance.

Update: 2026-10-06 13:30 GMT

Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay, Allahabad High Court

While upholding an order granting maintenance in favour of a wife, the Allahabad High Court has held that Instagram chats without mandatory statutory certification will not be treated as admissible electronic evidence.The High Court was considering a criminal revision filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by the revisionist, challenging the legality of the order of the Family Court allowing the application for maintenance preferred by the wife.

The Single Bench of Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay held, “Applying these settled legal principles to the facts at hand, it is evident that the Instagram chats produced by the revisionist are not supported by the mandatory statutory certification. In the absence of such a certificate, it would be entirely incorrect in law to treat this electronic evidence as admissible.”

Advocate Devdeep Malviya represented the Revisionist while Government Advocate Ashutosh Upadhyay represented the Opposite Party.

Factual Background

Due to marital discord, the revisionist and the wife (second Opposite Party) began residing separately. The wife subsequently initiated proceedings for maintenance, pleading that she was unable to maintain herself, while the revisionist, possessing sufficient means, had neglected and refused to do so. The revisionist husband challenged the grant of maintenance on the ground that the wife left the matrimonial house without any sufficient or justifiable ground. It was further alleged that the primary assertion of the revisionist was that the wife was living in adultery with an advocate, thereby disentitling her from claiming any maintenance.

Reasoning

The Bench explained that the statute provides a specific exception to the general rule of maintenance, i.e., no wife would be entitled to receive an allowance for maintenance if she is "living in adultery", or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.

The foundation of the revisionist's claim of adultery was digital evidence in the form of Instagram chats. Dealing with the aspect of the admissibility and evidentiary value of electronic records, the Bench stated, “It is a settled proposition of law that the admissibility of electronic evidence must be tested strictly at the anvil of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.”

The Bench noted that in the judgment of the Apex Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020), reference was made to Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) to reaffirm that the statutory certificate is a mandatory condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of an electronic record and secondary evidence of electronic records is admissible only if led in the strict manner stated in the statute, and not otherwise.

Thus, holding that, in the absence of the mandatory statutory certification, the Instagram chats could not be treated as admissible, the Bench held, “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". The burden lies heavily upon the revisionist to prove a continuous adulterous lifestyle, which he has failed to discharge.”

Finding no illegality in the impugned order, the Bench dismissed the criminal revision.