The Allahabad High Court has held that a man accusing his wife of adultery cannot seek an adverse judicial finding against the person named as her alleged partner without giving him an opportunity to be heard.
The court said that even where a family court can receive material that may not meet the strict rules of evidence, its authenticity and reliability must still be examined.
“The question of admissibility or reception of electronic material is distinct from the question of its authenticity, reliability and evidentiary value,” the court observed.
Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla passed the order while dismissing a criminal revision filed by Gaurav Srivastav against a Family Court order directing him to pay monthly maintenance to his wife and their minor son.
The Family Court, Court No. 3, Kanpur Nagar, had ordered Gaurav to pay Rs. 20,000 per month to his wife and Rs. 10,000 per month to their son under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Corresponding Section 144, BNSS, 2023)
The Family Court had made the maintenance payable from the date opposite party no. 2 (wife) filed her application.
The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated March 19, 2025 before the High Court.
A central part of his case was the allegation that his wife was living in an adulterous relationship with another person of Kanpur Nagar. He relied on photographs and other electronic material to support the allegation.
⚖️ Get daily Supreme Court & High Court case summaries + Order (PDF download links on WhatsApp): Join Practicing Lawyer Channel
He also argued that the Family Court could consider such material under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, without insisting on a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. (Corresponding Section 63 of BSA, 2023)
The High Court did not accept that argument as sufficient to establish the allegation. It explained that Section 14 gives a family court the flexibility to receive material that may assist it in dealing effectively with a dispute, but that flexibility does not make every document or electronic record trustworthy.
On examining the material relied upon by Gaurav, the court found that the photographs had not been properly authenticated.
Some appeared identical or similar, while others seemed to be composite images.
No witness had been produced to establish their source or originality. In these circumstances, the material could not conclusively prove the allegation of adultery.
The court drew a distinction between receiving evidence and relying on it to reach a finding.
The fact that a family court may consider material outside the strict rules of admissibility does not dispense with the need to assess whether it is genuine and reliable.
The court also took note of the consequences of making an allegation of adultery against a specifically named person.
The co-adulterer had been identified in the proceedings, but no effort was made to issue him notice or bring him before the court so that he could respond to the allegation.
Holding that such a finding could not be recorded behind the person’s back, the court stressed the importance of the principle that both sides must be heard (audi alteram partem).
The court observed “A judicial finding attributing an adulterous relationship to a specifically identified person cannot be regarded as an inconsequential observation.”
The court said that the issue was not merely whether the husband had produced material in support of his claim. The manner in which a judicial conclusion is reached was equally important.
As it put it, “justice is not merely in the decision that is reached, but also in the fairness with which it is reached.”
Revisionist also sought to introduce additional material at the revisional stage. The High Court declined to permit this, noting that the power to receive additional evidence under Sections 391 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is discretionary. (Corresponding Sections 432 and 442, BNSS, 2023)
The material remained unauthenticated, and the person against whom the allegation had been made had not been afforded an opportunity to be heard.
The court found no sufficient ground to interfere with the Family Court’s order on the other issues raised by revisionist, including the dispute over income and the circumstances in which his wife was living separately.
It accordingly dismissed the instant revision and upheld the maintenance order.
While dismissing the case, the High Court also pointed to a procedural gap in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC.
The court ruled that,
“Rule 6(a) of the Hindu Marriage and Divorce Rules, 1956, framed by this Court, specifically provides for impleadment of the alleged adulterer or adulteress as a co-respondent in proceedings for divorce or judicial separation on the ground of adultery, subject to the exceptions contained therein.”
The provision does not lay down a specific procedure for notifying or impleading a person accused of having an adulterous relationship with the applicant’s spouse.
The court directed the Registrar General to place the matter before the Chief Justice for consideration of whether appropriate rules should be framed to address the issue.
Case: Gaurav Srivastav vs State of U.P. and 2 others
Case No: Criminal Revision No. – 3039 of 2025
Date of Order: 13.10.2026
Status: Dismissed
