Introduction:

In a pivotal ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a husband can raise the defense of adultery to resist interim maintenance proceedings initiated by his wife. The Court also allowed the consideration of social media evidence at the preliminary stage of adjudicating such claims. Justice Sumeet Goel emphasized that content from platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp, including photographs and messages, can be valuable evidence, particularly in cases where proving adultery through traditional means is challenging.

The case revolved around a husband’s revision petition against a family court’s order directing him to pay interim maintenance and litigation expenses. He alleged his wife was living in adultery, supported by social media evidence. The central legal question was whether the husband could use adultery as a defense and whether social media evidence could be considered in interim maintenance claims under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

Arguments of Both Parties:

Husband’s Arguments:

• Plea of Adultery:

Counsel for the husband, Mr. Pardhuman Garg, argued that his wife was living in adultery, making her ineligible for interim maintenance under Section 125(4) of the CrPC. He claimed she was cohabiting with another man, which disqualified her from receiving maintenance. Garg supported this claim by presenting social media evidence.

• Social Media Evidence:

The husband presented photographs and text messages from platforms such as Facebook and WhatsApp that allegedly depicted his wife in compromising situations. He argued that, while this evidence might not fully meet the standards of the Indian Evidence Act, it should still be considered given the difficulty in proving adultery through conventional means.

• Legal Precedent and Statutory Interpretation:

The husband’s counsel referenced Section 125(4) of the CrPC, asserting that the law is clear in denying maintenance to a wife living in adultery. He also referred to Section 144(4) of the Bharatiya Nari Suraksha Samvidhan (BNSS), 2023, which contains similar provisions.

Wife’s Arguments:

• Defense Against Allegations of Adultery:

The wife, represented by advocates Mr. Simranjeet S. Sarwara and Ms. Khushika Setia, denied the allegations, claiming that the social media material had been manipulated. She argued that mere social interactions on these platforms should not be construed as evidence of adultery without corroborative proof.

• Entitlement to Maintenance:

The wife’s counsel stressed that interim maintenance is essential for sustenance during litigation. Denying it based on unproven allegations would cause undue hardship. They argued that the wife was financially dependent on her husband and that the statutory obligation for maintenance remained intact.

• Challenge to Admissibility of Social Media Evidence:

The wife’s counsel challenged the admissibility of the social media evidence, asserting that it did not meet the Indian Evidence Act standards. They argued that allowing such evidence could set a dangerous precedent, given the ease of manipulation of digital content.

Court’s Analysis and Judgment:

• Adultery as a Defense in Interim Maintenance Proceedings:

Justice Sumeet Goel ruled that a husband could raise the plea of adultery during interim maintenance proceedings, as Section 125(4) of the CrPC and Section 144(4) of the BNSS, 2023, clearly disqualify a wife from receiving maintenance if she is living in adultery. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof rests with the husband, but his plea could not be dismissed without due consideration of the evidence.

• Social Media as Evidence:

Justice Goel acknowledged the role of social media in modern life, noting that platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp create “social footprints” that can offer valuable insights into relationships. While recognizing the potential for manipulation, the Court held that social media evidence could be considered at the interim stage, especially when supported by other evidence.

Application of the Indian Evidence Act:

The Court stated that while social media evidence may not always meet the strict standards of the Indian Evidence Act, courts have the discretion to consider it if essential for case adjudication. Ignoring such evidence in today’s digital age would be impractical.

Ruling and Conclusion:

After reviewing the social media evidence, the Court concluded that the wife appeared to be in a relationship with another man, which she admitted in court. Consequently, the Court ruled that she was not entitled to interim maintenance or litigation expenses. The family court’s order was set aside, and the husband’s petition was allowed.