Can an Adultery Allegation Stop Interim Maintenance Before Trial Even Begins? The Supreme Court Says Yes, Carefully

Family courts have long wrestled with a timing problem under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If a husband accuses his wife of living in adultery, a ground that can disqualify her from maintenance entirely, must that allegation wait until the very end of a long trial to be examined, while interim maintenance keeps being paid in the meantime? On 31st July 2026, the Supreme Court answered this in Himanshu Chordia v. State of Rajasthan, holding that a clearly established, ex facie case of adultery can block even interim maintenance, without waiting for the full trial to conclude. For the Civil Judge Exam and PCS J Exam, this is now the leading word on Section 125(4) CrPC, also relevant under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

A Marriage, a Separation, and Two Competing Applications

Himanshu Chordia and his wife married in July 2014. As their relationship deteriorated, the wife left the matrimonial home in November 2020, along with the child born from the marriage and her valuables, and filed an application under Section 125 CrPC before the Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, PCPNDT Cases, Udaipur, seeking maintenance for herself and the child, along with a separate application for interim maintenance. In response, the husband filed his own application under Section 125(4) CrPC, alleging that his wife was living in an adulterous relationship with another individual, and arguing that this statutory disqualification should be examined and decided before any interim maintenance was granted.

How the Lower Courts Handled the Timing Question

On 27th June 2024, the Trial Court dismissed the husband's Section 125(4) application, holding that the authenticity and originality of the electronic evidence he relied on could only be determined once evidence was formally exhibited during the main trial. Having sidelined the adultery allegation on this basis, the Trial Court proceeded to award interim maintenance to the wife and the minor son. The husband challenged this before the High Court, arguing that a finding of adultery under Section 125(4) directly disentitles a wife to both interim and final maintenance, so it made no sense to postpone that question while continuing to pay interim maintenance in the meantime. The High Court dismissed his petition on 4th February 2025, holding that there was no provision in the CrPC mandating that infidelity be decided as a preliminary issue before interim maintenance could be granted.

Understanding inadequate grounds of arrest is important for Judiciary exam preparation and criminal law studies. Aspirants should know how the communication of arrest grounds relates to Article 22, procedural safeguards, and the legality of arrest. 

What the Supreme Court Held

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi allowed the husband's appeal. Writing for the Bench, Justice Karol examined the scheme of Section 125 CrPC, noting that these proceedings are summary in nature, use a civil standard of proof, and exist to prevent vagrancy and destitution. The Bench focused closely on Section 125(4), which explicitly bars a wife who is living in adultery from receiving maintenance or interim maintenance from her husband. Since the statute is unambiguous that proven adultery bars both interim and final maintenance, the Court reasoned that the question cannot simply be deferred to the end of trial while a wife continues to draw interim maintenance throughout. The Bench held that if a husband files an application under Section 125(4) CrPC and is able, at the first instance, to establish the charge of adultery through evidence ex facie, meaning clearly and on the face of the material presented, then there is a bar to interim maintenance. Ex facie evidence, in this context, does not require a full trial-level proof standard, but it must go beyond a bare, unsubstantiated allegation, the material placed before the court must clearly and convincingly point to the adulterous relationship at that preliminary stage.

Interim Maintenance Is Not Automatically Frozen the Moment an Allegation Is Made

It is worth being precise about what this ruling does and does not say. The Court did not hold that a mere allegation of adultery, without more, is enough to block interim maintenance. The second proviso to Section 125(1) CrPC provides for interim maintenance, and the ordinary, logical flow of proceedings is that once the basic facts supporting a maintenance claim are established, an interim order is made, and that order continues to operate until an application under Section 125(4) is conclusively decided. What changes under this ruling is that where the husband produces clear, ex facie evidence of adultery at the outset, courts cannot simply defer that statutory defence to the end of the case and keep interim maintenance running in the meantime. The application under Section 125(4) must actually be examined and decided on its merits, rather than dismissed at the threshold on the reasoning that authenticity of evidence can only be tested later at trial.

The Outcome and What Happens Next

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the matter to the Trial Court, directing it to decide the husband's Section 125(4) application on its merits, applying the principles laid down in this ruling, rather than dismissing it at the threshold as it had done earlier. This means the case itself is not finally over, the adultery allegation still has to be examined on the actual evidence, but the procedural point is now settled: such an application cannot be brushed aside on the ground that authenticity of evidence can only be judged at final trial.

Why This Matters Beyond One Family Dispute

The judgment also touches on wider themes that examiners like to connect to family law questions, including the growing use of electronic evidence in matrimonial disputes and the balance courts must strike between protecting a financially dependent spouse from destitution and not extending statutory benefits to a spouse expressly disqualified by the same statute. This is a useful case to cite whenever a question asks you to explain the objects and limits of Section 125 CrPC, now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, since it shows the provision is not a one-way protective shield but carries built-in disqualifications that courts are expected to actively examine, not defer indefinitely.

Watch our YouTube video for a quick and comprehensive revision of the CrPC 1973. Strengthen your concepts and revise important topics efficiently for Judiciary exams.

CrPC One Shot | Criminal Procedure Code 1973

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. What is the citation of this case?

Himanshu Chordia v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s). 3171 of 2025, decided on 31st July 2026.

Q2. What does Section 125(4) CrPC provide?

It bars a wife who is living in adultery from receiving either interim or final maintenance from her husband under Section 125 CrPC.

Q3. What standard of proof did the Supreme Court require to deny interim maintenance on adultery grounds?

The husband must establish the charge of adultery through evidence ex facie, meaning clearly and convincingly on the face of the material, at the first instance.

Q4. Did the Trial Court decide the husband's adultery application on merits?

No. It dismissed the application, holding that the authenticity of the electronic evidence could only be tested at final trial, and then granted interim maintenance to the wife regardless.

Q5. What did the Supreme Court direct on remand?

It set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the matter to the Trial Court to decide the husband's Section 125(4) application on its merits according to the principles laid down.

Q6. Which judges delivered this judgment?

Justice Sanjay Karol, who authored the judgment, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi.

Q7. Does a bare allegation of adultery automatically stop interim maintenance?

No. Interim maintenance ordinarily continues once basic facts are established, but where the husband produces clear ex facie evidence of adultery, that statutory defence must actually be examined rather than deferred to the end of trial.

Q8. Which provision of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita corresponds to Section 125 CrPC?

Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponds to Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion

This ruling gives judiciary aspirants a precise, current answer to a timing question that Section 125 CrPC never explicitly resolved on its own: adultery allegations, when backed by clear evidence, cannot simply be parked until the end of trial. For Civil Judge Exam and PCS J Exam preparation, this case belongs alongside your core notes on maintenance law. Nitesh Sir's family law sessions at Aashayein Judiciary regularly update students on exactly these kinds of procedural clarifications, since maintenance law is tested heavily and changes faster than many aspirants expect. If your revision on Section 125 CrPC and Section 144 BNSS needs a current-affairs refresh, structured judiciary coaching can help you stay exam-ready.Prepare smarter with expert guidance, structured study material, regular mock tests, and focused mentorship. Best Online Judiciary Coaching helps aspirants build strong concepts and prepare confidently for Prelims, Mains, and Interview.