The Supreme Court has held that an application under Section 125(4) CrPC alleging adultery must be considered before final adjudication of maintenance proceedings, but interim maintenance can be denied at the threshold only where clear and cogent evidence ex facie establishes adultery.

The Court was hearing an appeal by a husband who had filed an application under Section 125(4) CrPC, contending that his wife was not entitled to interim maintenance on account of alleged adulterous relationships.

The Trial Court dismissed his application at the threshold, observing that the authenticity of the photographs and CD relied upon could be determined only after evidence was exhibited in the main maintenance proceedings. The High Court declined interference, holding that the issue could be adjudicated at the final stage.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi held: “… if the application for maintenance is to be denied at the interim stage itself, the party having filed the application under Section 125(4) must present clear and cogent evidence that would ex-facie establish adultery on part of the claimant for maintenance.”

The Bench further observed: “… the Trial Court ought to have decided the appellant’s application under Section 125(4). It was incorrect for them to have observed that the appellant’s application could not have been decided prior to the final adjudication of the application filed by the wife. The second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 125 provides for interim maintenance; and as such, the logical flow of proceedings would be that once the basic facts are established, an order is made for interim maintenance, and that would continue to operate till the application under Section 125 (4) is decided conclusively”.

Advocate Prabhjit Jauhar appeared for the appellant, while Additional Advocate General Shiv Mangal Sharma appeared for the State and Advocate Preeti Singh appeared for the respondent-wife.

Background

The wife had filed an application under Section 125 CrPC and also sought interim maintenance. The husband thereafter moved an application under Section 125(4), alleging that she was living in adultery and was therefore disentitled to maintenance. He also filed an application under Section 91 CrPC seeking the production of material from different institutions and departments.

The Trial Court dismissed the Section 125(4) application along with the Section 91 application. It later granted interim maintenance of ₹25,000 each to the wife and the child.

The husband approached the High Court, challenging the rejection of his Section 125(4) application. The High Court held that although infidelity or adultery could be considered while deciding interim maintenance, the question was disputed and should be adjudicated at the final stage after evidence.

Before the Supreme Court, the issue was whether adultery under Section 125(4) CrPC can be decided at the first instance, so as to affect interim maintenance, or only at the stage of final adjudication.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court first examined the object of maintenance, the nature of Section 125 CrPC proceedings, and the structure of Section 125(4). It noted that maintenance law is intended to prevent destitution and ensure sustenance with dignity for those unable to maintain themselves.

The Court observed: “The basic idea behind the grant of maintenance, regardless of the legislation in which this right appears, is to ensure that neglect and destitution are prevented for people who are unable to provide for themselves, for instance, a spouse, child or even parents, by imposing an obligation under law upon those who can, or have sufficient means to, provide for those who are unable to maintain themselves. Such law is intended to ensure that individuals unable to provide for themselves have means of securing the essential aspects of a dignified life.”

The Bench culled out principles from earlier decisions, noting that Section 125 proceedings are summary, speedy, essentially civil in nature, secular, and oriented towards social justice. It referred to Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq (1987), Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.) (1991), Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001), Rajnesh v. Neha (2021), Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit (1999), Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (2011), Kamala v. M.R. Mohan Kumar (2019), Rina Kumari v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto (2025), and Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana (2025), among others.

The Court stated: “It cannot be gainsaid that the provision is oriented towards social justice; it is secular; and is aimed at providing a sense of sustenance with dignity for those who are unable to provide for themselves. Given its beneficent nature, the principles that govern an application made under this Section, culled out supra, have to be interpreted liberally, keeping in view the desired goal.”

The Court examined Section 125(4), which provides that no wife shall be entitled to receive maintenance or interim maintenance if she is living in adultery, refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason, or if the parties are living separately by mutual consent.

However, the Bench clarified that merely filing a Section 125(4) application does not automatically stop interim maintenance.

The Court observed: “The second proviso to Section 125(1) makes provision for interim maintenance and expenses of proceedings. It is clear therefore that the intent is for the maintenance allowance to reach the applicant expeditiously. It cannot be said as such, that once an application under the latter Section 125(4) has been made, even the payment of interim maintenance in the interregnum, till such application is decided, will be stopped.”

The Bench explained that if the Section 125(4) application succeeds, the interim order would be vacated; if it fails, the interim order would be confirmed or modified.

The Court added: “To put it plainly, the pendency of a 125(4) application would not per se bar the applicant from receiving interim maintenance on the ground that the said sub-section uses the word ‘interim maintenance’ also. If such a view is accepted, the payment of maintenance would be perpetually contingent on the decision in 125(4), which may, given the nature of the allegation, take considerable time in reaching its final conclusion.”

The Supreme Court described the scheme of Section 125 proceedings in stages. The first stage is the maintenance application, where interim maintenance may be granted. The second stage is the Section 125(4) application, whose decision determines whether the matter can proceed to final maintenance. Section 125(5), the Court said, deals with a stage after final maintenance is ordered.

The Bench stated: “Put clearly, it has to be observed that an application for maintenance is stage one of the proceedings wherein by virtue of the second proviso, the court may, circumstances permitting, award interim maintenance. The application under Section 125(4) is stage two and it is the decision in stage two which will determine whether the application reaches the final stage i.e. order of maintenance under Section 125(1) or not.”

The Court illustrated two situations: where interim maintenance is already granted before a Section 125(4) application, and where the Section 125(4) plea is filed at the outset. In both, if the disqualifying circumstance is admitted or established on the face of the record, interim maintenance may stop or never begin; otherwise, interim maintenance continues while the Court assesses the evidence.

On the proof required for adultery, the Supreme Court distinguished direct evidence from circumstantial evidence. It said circumstantial evidence, especially electronic material, may require verification and cannot always be accepted at first blush.

The Court held: “It is obvious that when a case is sought to be proved by circumstantial evidence, it requires a detailed study of the circumstances presented. The evidence furnished in support thereof, including verification, particularly when the evidence in question is electronic, etc. These procedures are bound to take time. Since the stipulation in the Section 125 (4) is that if adultery is proved, the wife would neither be entitled to interim nor final maintenance, 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.”

Applying this to the case, the Court noted that the husband had relied on photographs and other electronic material. The wife was entitled to dispute the correctness and legality of such evidence, and the Court had to consider that objection.

The Bench observed: “The question that the court must consider at the stage of interim maintenance is whether the evidence so presented establishes adultery. It is obviously open for the Respondent No. 2 to dispute the correctness and legality of the evidence presented, which would then have to be considered by the Court.”

The Court therefore concluded: “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.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and remanded the matter to the Trial Court to decide the husband’s Section 125(4) application on merits.

Cause Title: HC v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 778)

Appearances

Appellant: Advocates Prabhjit Jauhar, Tulika Bhatnagar and S.S. Jauhar, AOR

Respondent: Shiv Mangal Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Advocates Saurabh Rajpal, Shalini Singh, Nidhi Jaswal, AOR, Preeti Singh, AOR, Sunklan Porwal, Anuradha Anand, Sakshi Trivedi, Anoushka Bajpai and Pooja

Click here to read/download Judgment

Tags: