High Court rejects wife's maintenance plea over social media adultery evidence

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while observing that the wife was not entitled to any maintenance and litigation expenses, said that the husband should not be "unduly burdened" by his wife's misconduct.

In Short

• Punjab & Haryana High Court overturns maintenance order for husband
• Court accepts digital evidence despite manipulation concerns
• Says husband should not be "unduly burdened for wife's misconduct"

In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a family court order mandating a husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000 per month and one-time litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000 to his estranged wife.

The high court's decision was largely based on evidence from social media that indicated the wife was living with another man and allegedly committing adultery.

The husband had filed a petition challenging the family court's decision, arguing that his wife had deserted him and entered into a relationship with another individual.

He presented compelling evidence, including social media posts and photographs, which he claimed demonstrated the wife's infidelity. The court acknowledged the potential for manipulation of digital evidence but emphasized that it could not outrightly dismiss the material on such grounds.

In its examination of the evidence, the court noted that the wife failed to clarify the nature of her relationship and the capacity in which she was living with another man.

"The social life is extremely and openly engaged on social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and WhatsApp. The social network footprints, including photographs and text exchanges, can be considered for evidentiary purposes," Justice Sumit Goyal stated.

The court also observed that direct proof was generally difficult to obtain, and "all the actions of adultery can be perceived, deciphered, and ascertained by descending observations within the context".

Ultimately, the high court ruled that the wife was not entitled to maintenance or litigation expenses, asserting that the husband should not be unduly burdened for his wife's misconduct. "The 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," the court declared.

Legal analysts suggest this decision may set a precedent, encouraging individuals to scrutinize social media behavior more closely when navigating marital disputes. "This case underscores the need for individuals to be aware of their digital footprint," remarked family law attorney Neha Singh.