Mere Allegations Of Adultery Can't Disentitle Wife From Interim Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a husband cannot deny interim maintenance to his wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure merely by levelling allegations of adultery, without such claims being substantiated by cogent and legally admissible evidence.

Justice Neerja K. Kalson said,

"matrimonial litigation cannot be permitted to become a forum for character assassination so as to economically suffocate a spouse during pendency of proceedings. Mere allegations, unless supported by cogent prima facie material of sterling quality, cannot by themselves disentitle a wife from claiming interim maintenance."

The Court was hearing a revision petition challenging an order of the Family Court, whereby interim maintenance of ₹3,000 per month was awarded to the wife and ₹1,000 per month to the minor son from the date of filing of the petition.

At the outset, the petitioner-husband did not dispute the marital relationship or the maintenance granted to the child, but contended that the wife was disentitled to maintenance on account of alleged adulterous conduct. In support, reliance was placed on certain photographs showing the wife with another man.

Opposing the plea, counsel for the respondent- wife submitted that the photographs were being selectively interpreted and did not establish any adulterous relationship, even prima facie. It was argued that bald and unsubstantiated allegations cannot be used to deny sustenance to a legally wedded wife at the interim stage.

Rejecting the husband's contention, the High Court emphasised that proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are social welfare measures intended to prevent destitution and ensure a dignified standard of living for dependent spouses and children. The Court reiterated that “maintenance” is not charity but a legal right flowing from a continuing obligation.

Relying on settled Supreme Court cases, the Court observed that such provisions must receive a liberal interpretation in favour of women and children, consistent with their constitutional underpinning under Articles 15(3) and 39.

Importantly, the Court held that at the stage of interim maintenance, it is neither appropriate nor permissible to conduct a “mini trial” on disputed allegations such as adultery, which require detailed evidence and adjudication during trial.

On facts, the Court found that the photographs relied upon by the husband did not depict any conduct conclusively pointing towards an illicit relationship. It observed that mere images of a woman in the company of another person, including at social occasions or with her child, cannot give rise to a presumption of adultery.

“Allegations of adultery are serious in nature and carry lasting civil and social consequences. Such allegations cannot be casually inferred on the basis of conjectures or isolated material capable of multiple interpretations,” the Court observed.

The Court further cautioned that matrimonial litigation should not become a tool for character assassination or for economically suffocating a spouse during the pendency of proceedings.

Finding no illegality or perversity in the Family Court's order, and noting that the amount awarded was modest and justified, the High Court dismissed the revision petition.

Title: XXXX v. XXXX

Mr. Inderpreet Singh Kooner, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Varinder Dhiman, Advocate for the respondents.