In era of deepfakes, photos by spouse alleging adultery need to be verified by evidence: Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has refused to accept pictures claiming adultery in a case where a man challenged maintenance awarded to his ex-wife on the ground that she was adulterous. The Court observed that 'in an era of deepfakes, this aspect will have to be proved by way of evidence'.

A division bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Amit Bansal added expressed its reservations on accepting the husband's defence against payment of the maintenance amount. It stated, "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."

Taking judicial notice of the possibility of tampering with the photographs, the Court said, "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."

In the era of deepfakes, photographs produced by a spouse alleging adultery by the other partner would have to be proved by way of evidence before the family court, the Delhi High Court has said. 

The bench noted that since the petition instituted by the husband for divorce is pending adjudication, if this issue is pressed, the court may give opportunity to the parties to place their evidence on record in support of their respective cases.

"Notably, this aspect, which is vehemently pressed before us, almost as a measure of desperation to wriggle out of the obligation cast in the impugned judgment, finds no mention in the impugned judgment (of family court)," the high court said.

The husband's counsel claimed that this aspect was raised before the family court, however, it was ignored while rendering the judgment.

"If this was the situation, the best course open to the appellant/ husband was to move an application for review before the family court. However, no such measure has been taken recourse to by the husband," it said.

The man, an architect, had challenged an April 15 order of the Family Court awarding Rs 75,000 with yearly increase in maintenance at the rate of 7%, as monthly maintenance to his separated wife and 5-year-old daughter.

Against this, he took two defences - the first was that his income itself was only Rs. 40,000 - Rs. 41,000/- per month. The second was that his wife was living in adultery, which he sought to press by way of photographs.

The bench rejected both the defences, noting that the man's bank statement was not commensurate with his claim that he earns only around Rs. 40,000 per month.

Rejecting the man's appeal of adultery, the Court took note of the fact that the ground was not raised in the Family Court at all, as conceded by him.

Further, it noted that, "this aspect, which is vehemently pressed before us, almost as a measure of desperation to wriggle out of the obligation cast in the impugned judgment, finds no mention in the impugned judgment."

While the man contended that it had been raised before the Family Court but ignored by it, the bench was of the opinion that in this case it should have been raised in a review before the same court.

"However, no such measure has been taken recourse to by the appellant/husband," the Court observed.

Therefore, it went on to hold that it found "no merit in the appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed."

In this case the wife was also a mass communication post-graduate, currently unemployed and living with her parents.

She had claimed Rs 2 lakh per month as monthly maintenance from her husband, which was pared down by the Family Court to its current amount.

Cause Title: Nirmaan Malhotra v Tushita Kaul

[Read Judgment]