Wife Caught Sending Nude Photos To Another Man | “Such Conduct Not Expected In Indian Society”: MP High Court Upholds Divorce For Adultery

The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld a husband’s divorce after finding strong evidence that the wife was in an illicit relationship with another man. The Court said such behaviour like sharing nude photos and explicit chats, cannot be accepted in Indian society.

JABALPUR: The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur Bench) has upheld a Family Court ruling granting divorce to a husband after concluding that his wife was involved in an adulterous relationship with another man.

The Court held that the evidence—such as nude photos, explicit chats, emails and SMS messages—clearly showed conduct that no married woman in Indian society is expected to engage in.

The Division Bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat and Justice B.P. Sharma delivered the decision on 28 October 2025 in this case.

The Court noted:

“Considering the totality of the facts and evidence especially the nude photographs, emails, chats, SMS messages, and other circumstances it is not expected in Indian society that a wife would take nude photographs of herself, send them to another man electronically, request him to show his private parts during a video call, and herself view his private parts in return… In such circumstances, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that after marriage, the appellant/wife maintained an illicit relationship with respondent No. 2, disregarding the basic principles of the institution of marriage”.

This strong observation became central to the Court’s decision supporting the divorce granted on grounds of adultery and cruelty.

Marriage, Separation & Beginning of Litigation

The couple married on 20 November 2009 and had a son in 2010. However, they began living separately from April 2012. Soon after, in June 2012, the husband filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty and adultery.

During this time, the wife filed multiple cases against the husband—such as a dowry harassment FIR, a maintenance claim under Section 125 CrPC, proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, and a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. All these cases arose only after the husband filed the divorce petition.

The Family Court eventually granted divorce, ordered ₹5,000 per month as maintenance for the minor son, and directed ₹3,00,000 to the wife as stridhan. She appealed against these findings.

Wife’s Arguments: Evidence Manipulated Through Keylogger

In her appeal, the wife argued that the Family Court wrongly relied on electronic evidence collected using a keylogger installed by the husband on the household computer. She said the chats and emails were only forwarded messages that could easily be edited or manipulated.

She also argued that without a valid Section 65B Evidence Act certificate, the electronic records could not be accepted.

She further claimed her statements and those of her father were misread, and that the so-called evidence did not prove any sexual relationship with the man named in the case.

Court’s View: Family Courts Are Not Bound by Strict Evidence Act Rules

The High Court rejected these objections, relying on Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which allows Family Courts to consider any document or material that helps resolve the dispute, even if it may not be strictly admissible under the Evidence Act. The Court reiterated the statutory text:

“Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 expressly empowers the Family Court to receive and act upon any report, statement, document, information or material which, in its opinion, may assist it in effectively adjudicating the dispute between the parties, irrespective of whether such material would otherwise be admissible under the Evidence Act”.

The Court emphasised that the wife never objected to the admission of the documents during the trial, and objections raised for the first time on appeal cannot be entertained.

Standard of Proof in Matrimonial Cases: Preponderance of Probabilities

The Bench cited the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in N.G. Dastane vs. S. Dastane, reiterating:

In matrimonial disputes, the standard of proof is the preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court noted that adultery is seldom proved through direct evidence because such acts happen privately. Instead, Courts rely on circumstantial evidence—patterns of conduct, opportunities, conversations, frequency of contact, and overall behaviour.

This aligns with the Bench’s statement:

“The difficulty in obtaining clear or documentary evidence in such matters cannot be ignored by the Court while assessing the credibility of the spouse raising the allegation. Therefore, where the overall circumstances, conduct, frequency of interaction, deep involvement and opportunity are established on record, and such circumstances collectively give rise to a reasonable inference of an intimate relationship, the allegation cannot be discarded merely for want of direct or conclusive proof”.

What the Husband Found: Nude Photos, Explicit Chats, Video Calls

According to the husband’s testimony, the turning point occurred in November 2011 when he opened his wife’s email account on her request and found inappropriate chats with another man.

He then installed a keylogger in January 2012, which captured nude photographs, explicit chats, and video interactions. The Court recorded his statement that the wife had taken nude photographs of herself and sent them to the other man, and that she had asked him to expose himself during video calls.

The Court noted these details while recounting the evidence and the husband’s consistent statements.

It also noted inconsistencies in the wife’s testimony—such as denying her personal email ID and later admitting she had one, or initially denying knowing the man and later conceding that she had travelled and interacted socially with him.

Her refusal to view the electronic material in Court further damaged her credibility.

Cruelty Through False Cases & False Accusations

The Court also upheld the cruelty finding. The wife filed multiple criminal cases—including dowry harassment—after the divorce petition, all of which ended in dismissal. She had also accused her mother-in-law of an illicit relationship with a neighbour.

The Bench concluded:

False allegations and criminal complaints are sufficient to constitute matrimonial cruelty.

Permanent Alimony Denied Due to Adultery

The High Court agreed with the Family Court’s decision to deny permanent alimony because the wife was found living in adultery. It also upheld the stridhan award of ₹3,00,000, stating that the wife’s claims were not clearly supported by evidence on record.

Final Decision

After reviewing all records, testimonies and evidence, the High Court found no error in the Family Court’s reasoning. It therefore dismissed the wife’s appeal and upheld the divorce decree.

The Bench observed that the trial court had accurately connected the evidence with its findings and there was no reason for appellate interference.

Explanatory Table Of All Laws & Sections Used In This Case

Case Summary

• Case Title: EN vs SN & Others (First Appeal No. 101 of 2017)
• Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur
• Date of Judgment: 28 October 2025
• Bench (Judges)
  • Hon’ble Justice Vishal Dhagat
  • Hon’ble Justice B.P. Sharma

Case Origin

• Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, arising from a common judgment dated 06.01.2017 by the Family Court, Jabalpur in:
  • Civil Suit No. 273A/2013 – Husband’s divorce petition
  • Civil Suit No. 156A/2013 – Wife’s restitution of conjugal rights petition
• Marriage & Family Details
  • Marriage: 20.11.2009 (Hindu rites)
  • Child: Son – born 24.11.2010
  • Separation: 08.04.2012
  • Divorce Petition Filed: 13.06.2012 (Bengaluru), later transferred to Jabalpur
• Key Allegations by Husband
  • Wife sent nude photographs to another man
  • Explicit video calls, SMS, emails, chats
  • Keylogger captured proof
  • Found wife in same bed with the man
  • Wife filed multiple false criminal cases after divorce petition
  • Mental cruelty established
• Key Allegations by Wife
  • Electronic records were manipulated
  • Keylogger was illegally installed
  • Chats were “forwarded messages”
  • Evidence lacked Section 65B certification
• Findings of Family Court
  • Divorce granted on adultery + cruelty
  • Wife’s RCR petition dismissed
  • ₹5,000 per month maintenance for son
  • ₹3,00,000 stridhan awarded
  • Permanent alimony denied (adultery)

Findings of High Court (Final Verdict)

The High Court upheld the divorce and made strong observations:

“Considering the totality of the facts and evidence especially the nude photographs, emails, chats, SMS messages, and other circumstances it is not expected in Indian society that a wife would take nude photographs of herself, send them to another man electronically…”

• Court held that adultery stood proven
• False cases = cruelty
• Permanent alimony not allowed because wife lived in adultery
• Appeal dismissed

Key Takeaways

• The MP High Court clearly held that a wife sending nude photos and engaging in explicit chats with another man is adultery—no excuses, no technical shields.
• False criminal cases filed by the wife after the divorce petition were treated as cruelty; misuse of 498A and DV Act finally acknowledged on record.
• The Court accepted electronic evidence without rigid technical hurdles, showing that truth can prevail even when wives deny everything in court.
• Permanent alimony was denied because the wife was living in adultery, reinforcing that husbands are not lifelong financial liabilities for unfaithful spouses.
• The judgment reaffirms that men, too, face harassment and false litigation, and courts must evaluate facts rather than blindly accepting victimhood claims.

This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.