Himanshu Chordia married Arushi Jain in July 2014. As the marriage broke down, the wife left the matrimonial home in May 2020 along with their child, and filed a maintenance application under Section 125 CrPC before the Special ACJM, Udaipur, along with an application for interim maintenance. The husband opposed the claim by invoking Section 125(4) CrPC — the provision that bars a wife from receiving maintenance if she is “living in adultery” — and placed on record a large volume of evidence: 92 videos and 237 photographs, apparently obtained through private investigators.
Wife leaves the matrimonial home with the child; relations between the parties had been strained for some time.
Wife files for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, along with an application for interim maintenance.
Husband files an application under Section 125(4) CrPC alleging adultery, backed by extensive photo/video evidence; also seeks third-party records under Section 91 CrPC.
Trial Court dismisses both applications, holding that authenticity of the adultery evidence can only be tested once evidence is formally exhibited at final hearing — and grants interim maintenance of ₹25,000 each to wife and son.
Rajasthan High Court dismisses the husband’s quashing petition, holding that no provision requires the adultery question to be decided as a preliminary issue.
Supreme Court sets aside the High Court’s judgment and remands the matter for a fresh decision on the Section 125(4) application.
The Bench traced the structure of Section 125 as a three-stage process: an application for maintenance (stage one, where interim maintenance may be granted under the second proviso to sub-section (1)); an application under sub-section (4) disputing entitlement on grounds such as adultery (stage two); and final adjudication under sub-section (1) (stage three). Sub-section (5), by contrast, deals with cancelling an order already made — a distinct, later stage.
Since Section 125 proceedings are summary and beneficent in character, meant to reach a dependent spouse quickly, the Court held that interim maintenance cannot simply be suspended the moment a Section 125(4) application is filed — that would let the mere filing of an allegation defeat the purpose of interim relief. Equally, deferring the adultery question entirely to the final hearing, as both courts below had done, would make Section 125(4) “otiose” in practical terms, since final adjudication can take years.
The resolution: if the husband is able to establish adultery ex facie — on the face of the evidence, at the very first instance — interim maintenance can be denied even before final trial. If the evidence requires detailed proof (as with the disputed photographs and videos here), the court must still adjudicate the Section 125(4) application on its merits rather than simply parking it, while interim maintenance continues until that determination is made.
Much of the husband’s case rested on photographs and videos apparently sourced from private investigators. The Court noted this raises real evidentiary questions — chain of custody, authenticity, and compliance with Section 65-B of the Evidence Act (or its BSA, 2023 equivalent) for electronic records — issues that go well beyond the adultery question itself.
Beyond the Ratio — A Regulatory Gap Flagged
The Court used the occasion to flag the complete absence of regulation over private investigators in India — no licensing, no accountability for how evidence is collected, no protection against allegations such as voyeurism under Section 354C IPC, and no grievance mechanism for those aggrieved by an investigator’s conduct. It noted a 2007 Bill on private detective agencies that never became law, and directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Law Ministry and the Law Commission of India for consideration.
This part of the order is not binding precedent, but it signals where the Court sees a gap worth watching — particularly relevant given how often matrimonial litigation now turns on privately gathered digital evidence.
Operative Order
Interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC can be denied only where the husband establishes the wife’s adultery ex facie, at the first instance — not merely by filing a Section 125(4) application. Deferring this question to final adjudication defeats the purpose of the provision.
The High Court’s judgment dated 4 February 2025 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Trial Court to decide the husband’s Section 125(4) application on its merits. Appeal allowed.
This order gives trial courts a workable test in a recurring and often contentious situation: adultery allegations are common in maintenance proceedings, and litigants on both sides need clarity on when such allegations can actually stop interim relief. By requiring the evidence to be ex facie convincing rather than merely alleged, the Court protects genuine claimants from being starved of support on unproven accusations — while still giving real effect to Section 125(4) where the evidence is clear. The observations on private investigators, though not binding, are likely to be cited increasingly as such evidence becomes more common in family litigation.
Prepared for the LawShrine Judgment Library. This note summarises the reported judgment for professional and academic reference and is not a substitute for reading the original judgment or for independent legal advice on any specific matter.
Lawshrine Trust is dedicated to advancing justice and empowerment for those who need it most. We focus on protecting the rights of children, advocating for women’s rights,
Disclaimer: The above objectives are indicative and shall not be construed as limiting the scope of activities of Lawshrine Trust, which may undertake any lawful activity aligned with its mission and objects.
©2026. Lawshrine. All Rights Reserved.
Develop by 
Technologies
