The Supreme Court on Friday (July 31) held that an interim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. can be denied to the wife, once the husband ex facie establishes the wife's adulterous relation at the stage of interim stage.

“…we are of the view that if a husband files an application under Section 125(4) and is, at the first instance, able to establish the charge through evidence ex facie, then only, there can be said to be a bar to interim maintenance.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, while allowing the appeal filed by a husband whose application under Section 125(4) alleging adultery was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the issue could only be decided at the stage of final adjudication.

The appellant, husband, married to the Respondent No. 2, wife, in 2014. Due to strained relations, the wife left the matrimonial home in 2020, along with the child and valuables. Thereafter, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance.

The husband filed an application under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., contending that on account of adulterous relationships, the wife was not entitled to any maintenance. He placed photographs and other evidence allegedly showing the wife's infidelity.

The Trial Court dismissed the husband's application, holding that the authenticity and originality of the documents could only be determined after evidence was exhibited in the main petition.

The High Court affirmed this view, holding that there was no provision mandating adjudication of such an issue before deciding an application for interim maintenance.

Against the High Court's decision, the husband moved to the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned judgment, the judgment authored by Justice Karol noted the Courts below erred in dismissing the Appellant's application under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. at the threshold. Once the evidence brought on record by the husband ex facie established the adulterous relations of the wife, instead of deciding his application at the interim stage, it was unreasonable for the Courts below to dismiss the same at the threshold.

“The courts below clearly fell into error to hold that it was only at the stage of final adjudication that such a question could be decided. This view would render otiose what has been provided in the statute.”, the Court said.

“…the matter stands remanded to the Trial Court to make a decision on the merits since they had in this instance dismissed the application on the threshold.”, the Court held.

The appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: HIMANSHU CHORDIA VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 748

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. S. Jauhar, AOR Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Adv. Ms. Tulika Bhatnagar, Adv. Ms. Chahat Raghav, Adv. Ms. Shreya Narayan, Adv. Mr. Tanay Kalia, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G. Ms. Shalini Singh, Adv. Mr. Aishwarya Jaiswal, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR Ms. Preeti Singh, AOR Mr. Sunklan Porwal, Adv. Ms. Kriti Dahiya, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Trivedi, Adv. Mr. Akshay Chhabra, Adv.