'We Are Living In Era Of Deepfakes': Delhi High Court Says Photos Produced By Husband Alleging Adultery By Wife Must Be Proved In Trial

The Delhi High Court has refused to rely on the photographs produced by a man to show that his wife has been living in adultery and to claim that she is not entitled to receive maintenance from him under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal observed that in this era of "deepfakes", it is necessary that the alleged photographs are proved by way of evidence before the family court dealing with the matrimonial dispute.

"We have looked at the photographs. It is not clear as to whether the respondent/wife is the person in the photographs, as alluded to by the learned counsel for the appellant/husband. We may take judicial notice of the fact that we are living in the era of deepfakes and, therefore, this is an aspect that the appellant/husband, perhaps, would have to prove by way of evidence before the Family Court," said the Court.

It however granted opportunity to both the parties to place their evidence on record in support of their respective cases, finding that the petition instituted for divorce by the husband is pending adjudication.

The bench was hearing an appeal filed by the husband against family court's maintenance order. The wife was a post–graduate in Mass Communication but after separation, she was living with her parents and was not employed. The family court ordered the husband to pay Rs. 75,000 cumulative maintenance to both his wife and their daughter. He thus moved the High Court taking the ground of adultery.

The High Court observed that the allegation of adultery was not raised before the family court. Even if it was raised but was ignored by the family Court while rendering the judgment, the husband should have sought a review. However that was not the case. Thus Court remarked that the allegation appeared to be a "measure of desperation to wriggle out of the obligation" cast on him by the Family Court.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Counsel for Appellant: Prateek Goswami

Counsel for Respondent: None

Case Title: Nirmaan Malhotra vs. Tushita Kaul

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 710

Case Number: MAT. APP.(F.C.) 180/2024 &CM Nos.32316-18/2024

Click here to read/ download the Order