The court, keeping in mind the era of "deepfakes", ruled that such photographs need to be certified with proper evidence before the family court.
A division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdhar and Justice Amit Bansal examined the photographs and concluded that it was not clear whether the woman in the photographs was actually the wife or not.
The court said: "We have seen the photographs. It is not clear whether the respondent/wife is the person in the photographs as indicated by the counsel for the appellant/husband. We may take judicial notice of the same. The fact is That we are living in the age of deepfakes and hence, this is an aspect which the appellant/husband will have to prove, perhaps, through evidence before the family court."
This gave both parties an opportunity to present their evidence in the ongoing divorce proceedings in the family court.
The husband had appealed against a family court order ordering him to pay Rs 75,000 per month as cumulative maintenance to his wife and daughter. The wife, a postgraduate in Mass Communication, was living with her parents and was unemployed since their separation.
The High Court said that the allegation of adultery had not previously been made in the family court. Even if this had been raised but ignored, the husband should have sought review, which he did not, and thus, the adultery claim imposed by the family court was "a measure of desperation to avoid liability". As it seemed.
As a result, the High Court dismissed the husband's appeal while upholding the maintenance order of the family court.
A division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdhar and Justice Amit Bansal examined the photographs and concluded that it was not clear whether the woman in the photographs was actually the wife or not.
The court said: "We have seen the photographs. It is not clear whether the respondent/wife is the person in the photographs as indicated by the counsel for the appellant/husband. We may take judicial notice of the same. The fact is That we are living in the age of deepfakes and hence, this is an aspect which the appellant/husband will have to prove, perhaps, through evidence before the family court."
This gave both parties an opportunity to present their evidence in the ongoing divorce proceedings in the family court.
The husband had appealed against a family court order ordering him to pay Rs 75,000 per month as cumulative maintenance to his wife and daughter. The wife, a postgraduate in Mass Communication, was living with her parents and was unemployed since their separation.
The High Court said that the allegation of adultery had not previously been made in the family court. Even if this had been raised but ignored, the husband should have sought review, which he did not, and thus, the adultery claim imposed by the family court was "a measure of desperation to avoid liability". As it seemed.
As a result, the High Court dismissed the husband's appeal while upholding the maintenance order of the family court.
