No. In a maintenance dispute, the Allahabad High Court reportedly ruled that alleged Instagram messages alone did not establish that a wife was “living in adultery.” The court said the messages lacked corroboration of physical intimacy or cohabitation; it also noted that the electronic evidence was not supported by the certification required for electronic records.
What the Allahabad High Court reportedly decided
According to Hindustan Times, a single-judge bench of Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay dismissed a husband’s revision petition challenging a Family Court maintenance order from Sambhal at Chandausi. The Family Court order was dated October 1, 2025, and the High Court’s judgment was dated September 29, 2026.
![Modern Family Law: Cases and Materials [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook) (Aspen Casebook Series)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41c7aYxO9SL._SL160_.jpg)
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The husband argued that his wife should not receive maintenance because she was living in adultery. He relied on printouts of Instagram conversations allegedly exchanged between her and an advocate. The reporting says the court rejected the challenge: those messages did not, by themselves, prove the kind of continuing conduct required to deny maintenance.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsWhy the chat printouts were not enough
Messages did not establish physical intimacy or cohabitation
The ruling, as quoted by India Today, distinguished text messages from evidence of physical intimacy or living together. The report reproduces the court’s statement: “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.”
#1 Best Overall
Electronic-record certification was a separate issue
The reports also say the court noted that the husband had not provided the certification required under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act for the electronic material. This is distinct from the question of what the messages proved: the reported reasoning addressed both the evidentiary support for the allegation and the certification of the electronic records.
What “living in adultery” means in this maintenance context
The coverage describes the relevant standard as a continuous, ongoing and habitual course of adulterous conduct—not a single lapse or an inference drawn from ordinary communication. The court is reported to have said: “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.”
Rank #2
Those statements are reported quotations from India Today, not a verified transcription from the original judgment. The reports frame the dispute under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Recommended Free Tools
What this ruling does—and does not—say about social media evidence
The decision should not be read as a rule that Instagram messages or other social-media records can never be evidence of adultery. In this particular maintenance dispute, the reported conclusion was that the printouts did not establish continuous adultery without corroboration of physical intimacy or cohabitation, and that the electronic material lacked the certification the court reportedly required.
Rank #3
The available reports concern a specific challenge to a maintenance order. They do not establish how a court would assess different evidence, a different legal issue, or a record that meets applicable evidentiary requirements.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What is confirmed in the published reports
- Dispute: A husband challenged a Family Court order granting maintenance to his wife.
- Material relied on: Printouts of alleged Instagram chats between the wife and an advocate.
- Reported evidentiary gap: The messages were not corroborated by evidence of physical intimacy or cohabitation.
- Additional issue: The reports say the electronic records were not accompanied by Section 65-B certification.
- Outcome: The High Court reportedly dismissed the husband’s challenge.
The official judgment text was not located in the reporting available here. The case number, full party names, maintenance amount, and any later appeal or clarification are therefore not stated.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
