Supreme Court: While deciding a case wherein the Court had to consider the husband’s obligation to pay maintenance on account of wife’s adultery, the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol* and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ., clarified that since the stipulation in Section 125(4), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) is that if adultery is proved, then the wife would neither be entitled to interim nor final maintenance; therefore, Court opined that if a husband files an application under Section 125(4) CrPC and is, at the first instance, able to establish the charge of adultery through evidence ex facie, then only, there can be said to be a bar to interim maintenance.
Background and Legal Trajectory
The couple got married in July 2014, however due to subsequent straining of relationship between the two, the wife left her matrimonial home along with the child born from the wedlock and her valuables. In November 2020 the wife filed application under Section 125 CrPC, which became the main petition and an application for interim maintenance, before the Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, PCPNDT Cases (trial court), Udaipur. In the maintenance proceedings the husband also filed applications under Section 125(4) CrPC contending that on account of adulterous relationships, his wife is not entitled to any interim maintenance, given the express bar contained in the provision.
The trial court dismissed the husband’s application Section 125(4) CrPC along with an application under Section 91 CrPC stating that allegations regarding the wife’s adultery were mainly based on photographs and CD whose authenticity could not be confirmed at this stage of the proceedings. The trial court further stated that the husband’s application can only be determined after the exhibition of evidence in the main petition filed by the wife.
Subsequently, the husband filed a quashment petition before the Rajasthan High Court vis-à-vis the aforesaid dismissal orders and the order granting interim maintenance to the tune of ₹25,000 each to the wife and their son. Vide the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the husband’s petition.
Court’s Assessment
Upon perusal of the trajectory of the case and in order to determine the correctness of High Court’s findings, the Court firstly pointed out that it must look into the object of maintenance; the nature of proceedings under Section 125 CrPC; and the contours of Section 125(4) CrPC; only then the question whether the issue of adultery, as it appears in Section 125(4), can be decided as a preliminary issue or is it only capable of decision at the time of final adjudication, can be considered.
The Court stated that the basic idea behind grant of maintenance is to ensure that neglect and destitution are prevented for people who are unable to provide for themselves. Reiterating the contours of Section 125 CrPC the Court stated that, provision is oriented towards social justice; is secular and is aimed at providing a sense of sustenance with dignity for those who are unable to provide for themselves. Given its beneficent nature, the principles that govern an application made under Section 125 CrPC, must be interpreted liberally, keeping in view the desired goal.
Moving on to examining Section 125(4) CrPC, the Court stated that stipulation under this provision inserted vide amendment in 2001 indicating that the legislature sought to address a situation where there is adultery on part of the wife. Perusing the Statement of Objects and Reasons (SOR) of the 2001 Amendment, the Court pointed out that it was suggested that maintenance shall be denied if the wife lives in adultery or without any sufficient reason, refuses to live with her husband or is living separately by mutual consent. Therefore, Section 125(4) provides that if adultery is established, the wife claiming maintenance would not be entitled to the same as an interim measure and therefore, obviously, not even as a final measure and Section 125(5) CrPC thereof makes it even more obvious.
The Court stated that if the application for maintenance is to be denied at the interim stage itself, the party having filed the application under Section 125(4) must present clear and cogent evidence that would ex facie establish adultery on part of the claimant for maintenance.
Applying the aforesaid analysis on the facts of this case, the Court stated that it has to decide whether allegations of adultery, when made, have to be decided at the first instance so as to, if proved, take away the entitlement of the wife to maintenance or is it to be decided at the stage of final adjudication. The Court emphasised that adultery, if proved, takes away maintenance from the wife, then the application to prove such a fact has to be decided between the order granting interim maintenance and final adjudication of such application for maintenance.
The Court thus opined that upon filing an application under Section 125(4) CrPC if a husband at first instance is able to prove the wife’s adultery, then there will be a bar upon grant of interim maintenance.
Given that the husband in the present case provided multiple electronic evidence to establish, therefore, the Court must consider at the stage of interim maintenance is whether the evidence so presented establishes adultery. It is open for the wife to dispute the correctness and legality of the evidence presented, which would then have to be considered by the Court.
Decision
In view of the aforesaid assessment, the Court opined that the trial court should have decided the husband’s application under Section 125(4) CrPC. It was incorrect for them to have observed that the husband’s application could not have been decided prior to the final adjudication of the application filed by the wife. The Court pointed out that the second proviso to Section 125(1) CrPC provides for interim maintenance; and as such, the logical flow of proceedings would be that once the basic facts are established, an order is made for interim maintenance, and that would continue to operate till the application under Section 125(4) CrPC is decided conclusively.
Therefore, the matter was remanded trial court to make a decision on the merits since they had in this instance dismissed the application on the threshold.
[Himanshu Chordia v. State of Rajasthan, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).3171 of 2025, decided on 31-7-2026]
*Judgment by Justice Sanjay Karol
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Adv. Ms. Tulika Bhatnagar, Adv. Mr. S. S. Jauhar, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G. Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, Adv. Ms. Shalini Singh, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR Ms. Preeti Singh, AOR Mr. Sunklan Porwal, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Anand, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Trivedi, Adv. Ms. Anoushka Bajpai, Adv. Ms. Pooja, Adv