We are in deepfakes era, photos to show partner's adultery must be proven in trial: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently declined to set aside a family court order asking a husband to pay monthly maintenance of ₹75,000 to his wife and child, observing that the photographs presented by him to allege that she was living in adultery would have to be proven in trial. .Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal, while refusing to rely on the photographs, referred to the menace of deepfakes and stressed that the alleged photos must be proven first through trial."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," the Court said in its May 28 ruling..The Court also noted that there was nothing to indicate that the argument regarding the wife's alleged adultery was raised before the family court. "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," the High Court said..The Court was dealing with an appeal filed by an architect challenging a family court order dated April 15, directing him to pay ₹75,000 as monthly maintenance to his wife. The couple had married in 2018 and had a 5-year-old girl child. The Court was told that the wife was a post-graduate but was currently unemployed and living with her parents. She had sought ₹2,00,000 as monthly maintenance from her husband, but a family court eventually ordered for the payment of ₹75,000 as maintenance. While challenging this order before the High Court, the husband alleged that his wife was living in adultery and sought to show certain photographs to support his claim. .The High Court, however, refused to interfere with the family court order. The High Court added that the aspect of the alleged adultery of the wife could be raised before the family court by filing a review petition. "The learned counsel for the appellant/husband says 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 appellant/husband," the High Court noted, before dismissing the husband's appeal. .Advocate Prateek Goswami appeared for the husband..[Read Order]