In Himanshu Chordia v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., SC held that if a wife is prima facie found to be living in an adulterous relationship and husband is able to establish such allegation through clear and cogent evidence at threshold, she can be denied interim maintenance u/s 125 CrPC.

The appellant-husband, Himanshu Chordia, married respondent-wife, Arushi Jain, on 7 July 2014. Due to matrimonial disputes, wife left the matrimonial home on 13 May 2020 along with their child and valuables. Thereafter, she instituted proceedings u/s 125 CrPC seeking maintenance and interim maintenance.

The husband opposed the claim by filing an application u/s 125(4) CrPC, alleging that wife was living in an adulterous relationship and was disentitled to maintenance. In support of his allegations, he produced photographs, electronic evidence and additional affidavits before Trial Court.

However, Trial Court dismissed husband’s application u/s 125(4), observing that authenticity of photographs and other electronic evidence could only be determined after recording evidence in the main maintenance proceedings. It held that the issue of adultery could not be decided at the interim stage and proceeded with maintenance proceedings.

High Court also affirmed this view, holding that there was no statutory requirement to decide the allegation of adultery as a preliminary issue before considering interim maintenance and it was a matter of trial.

However, Supreme Court emphasized that Section 125(4) creates a statutory exception by disentitling a wife from receiving maintenance if she is living in adultery, refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason, or the parties are living separately by mutual consent.

Court clarified that merely filing an application u/s 125(4) does not automatically suspend the payment of interim maintenance but where evidence produced by the husband prima facie establishes one of the statutory disqualifications u/s 125(4), Court is empowered to refuse or discontinue interim maintenance even before final disposal of maintenance petition.

Accordingly, Supreme Court held that Trial Court had erred in rejecting husband’s application solely on the ground that evidence was electronic in nature and could only be examined during final adjudication.

Allowing the appeal, SC set aside the judgment of High Court and remanded the matter to Trial Court for fresh consideration of husband’s application u/s 125(4) on its own merits.