Wife ‘Living in Adultery’ Is Disentitled to Interim as Well as Final Maintenance Under Section 125(4) CrPC: Supreme Court
Case Name: Himanshu Chordia v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Date of Judgment: 31 July 2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 778
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
Held: The Supreme Court held that Section 125(4) CrPC expressly disentitles a wife “living in adultery” from both interim and final maintenance, and therefore an objection founded on that provision cannot invariably be postponed until final disposal of the maintenance proceedings. However, merely filing an adultery application does not suspend interim maintenance. If adultery is admitted or established through clear and cogent evidence ex facie, interim maintenance may be stopped and the maintenance claim dismissed; where the allegation depends on disputed evidence requiring authentication and proof, interim maintenance continues while the Section 125(4) application is adjudicated. The courts below therefore erred in holding that the issue could be considered only at the stage of final adjudication.
Summary: Himanshu Chordia and respondent-wife Arushi Jain married in 2014 and later separated. In November 2020, the wife instituted proceedings under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance and interim maintenance. The husband responded with an application under Section 125(4) alleging that she was living in adulterous relationships and was consequently statutorily barred from receiving maintenance. The Magistrate declined to decide the adultery objection at that stage, reasoning that the photographs, CD and other material relied upon required proof during the main proceedings. Interim maintenance of ₹25,000 each to the wife and their son was subsequently granted.
The Rajasthan High Court substantially agreed with the Magistrate. Although it acknowledged that infidelity could be considered while deciding interim maintenance, it held that there was no requirement to treat adultery as a preliminary issue and that the disputed question could be adjudicated after evidence at final disposal of the Section 125 proceedings. The Supreme Court held that such an approach failed to give proper effect to the express language of Section 125(4).
The Supreme Court explained the proceedings in stages. The court may first award interim maintenance under Section 125(1). A Section 125(4) objection then requires determination before the proceedings culminate in final maintenance. If the statutory disqualification is apparent on the face of admitted or clear evidence, interim maintenance can immediately cease; if the evidence requires proof, interim maintenance remains payable during that enquiry. Thus, Section 125(4) is neither an automatic stay on maintenance nor an issue that can always be postponed until the end of the case.
On the facts, the husband relied on numerous photographs and other electronic material allegedly showing an extramarital relationship. The Court did not hold that adultery had been proved. It noted that the wife was entitled to contest the correctness, authenticity and legality of this material and directed the Trial Court to decide the Section 125(4) application on merits. The judgment separately raised concerns regarding apparently privately procured evidence about 92 videos and 237 photographs including authenticity, manipulation, privacy, personal-data protection and the absence of regulation governing private investigators.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Rajasthan High Court judgment and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for a merits determination of the husband’s Section 125(4) CrPC application in accordance with the principles laid down in the judgment. It made no finding that the respondent-wife was in fact living in adultery. Separately, considering the unregulated use of private investigators and associated concerns regarding electronic evidence, privacy and data collection, the Court directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice and the Chairman, Law Commission of India to consider the matter appropriately.