Introduction:
The Supreme Court in Himanshu Chordia v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [2026 LiveLaw (SC) 748] has clarified an important aspect of maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, holding that interim maintenance can be denied where the husband is able to prima facie establish that the wife is living in adultery. The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi.
The dispute arose after the marriage between the appellant-husband and respondent-wife in 2014. Owing to matrimonial discord, the wife left the matrimonial home in 2020 along with the couple’s child and later initiated proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. During the pendency of the proceedings, the husband invoked Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., contending that the wife was living in an adulterous relationship and therefore was statutorily disentitled from claiming maintenance. He relied upon photographs and other material to support his allegation.
The Trial Court rejected the husband’s application at the threshold, holding that the authenticity of the documents could be examined only during the final adjudication of the maintenance petition. The Rajasthan High Court affirmed this view, observing that there was no legal requirement to decide such an objection before considering interim maintenance. Aggrieved by these concurrent findings, the husband approached the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties:
The appellant-husband argued that Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. expressly disentitles a wife from claiming maintenance if she is living in adultery. He submitted that once he had produced material which prima facie established the adulterous relationship, the courts were duty-bound to consider the statutory bar even at the interim stage. Ignoring such evidence and postponing the issue until final disposal would defeat the legislative intent and compel a husband to pay maintenance despite the existence of a legal disqualification.
The respondent-wife, supported by the State, contended that allegations of adultery involve disputed questions of fact requiring detailed evidence and cross-examination. It was argued that the genuineness and evidentiary value of the documents relied upon by the husband could not be determined at an interlocutory stage. Therefore, the issue should appropriately be decided only after the recording of evidence in the main maintenance proceedings.
Court’s Judgment:
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the courts below had adopted an erroneous approach in rejecting the husband’s application without examining whether the material placed before them prima facie established the wife’s adulterous relationship. The Court observed that Section 125(4) creates a statutory bar against maintenance where the wife is living in adultery, and such a provision cannot be rendered meaningless by postponing its consideration until final adjudication.
The Bench clarified that interim maintenance is not to be denied merely because the husband makes an allegation of adultery. However, where the husband is able to produce evidence that, on the face of it, establishes such a relationship, the court must examine the objection at the interim stage itself. The Court held that only when a prima facie case is made out under Section 125(4) can interim maintenance be refused.
Justice Sanjay Karol, writing for the Bench, observed that refusing to consider such an application until the conclusion of the trial would render the statutory defence ineffective. The Court emphasised that courts must undertake a preliminary assessment of the material produced without conducting a detailed trial on merits. This ensures that the statutory protection available to a husband under Section 125(4) is not defeated while simultaneously preventing frivolous allegations from depriving a wife of maintenance.
Since the Trial Court and the High Court had dismissed the husband’s application solely on the ground that the issue could be decided only during final adjudication, the Supreme Court found their orders legally unsustainable. The matter was accordingly remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration of the husband’s application on its merits after evaluating whether the evidence produced disclosed a prima facie case of adultery.
The judgment does not lay down that every allegation of adultery will automatically defeat a claim for interim maintenance. Instead, it establishes that courts must determine whether the husband has produced sufficient prima facie material before deciding the issue. The decision thus balances the welfare objective underlying maintenance provisions with the statutory exceptions contained in Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., ensuring that neither the rights of the wife nor the legal defence available to the husband is overlooked.