Maintenance — Section 125(4) CrPC Adultery Bar · 31 July 2026
Himanshu Chordia v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.: Section 125(4) CrPC Adultery Objection Cannot Be Deferred to Final Trial Without Threshold Scrutiny
Supreme Court of India · 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 748
Download the full judgment (PDF)
Enter your name and WhatsApp number to get the download link. We'll also let you know on WhatsApp if we can help with this case — filing, tracking, or anything else — no obligation either way.
We use this only to send the link and to follow up about this case. See our privacy policy.
The parties married in 2014. In 2020, amid strained relations, the wife left the matrimonial home along with the couple's child and certain valuables, and later sought maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The husband filed an application under Section 125(4) CrPC, placing photographs and other material on record that he said showed the wife was in an adulterous relationship. Both the Trial Court and the High Court declined to examine this material at the interim stage, holding that whether the wife was disentitled under Section 125(4) could only be decided once evidence was formally led at the final hearing.
The Supreme Court (Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi) set aside both orders. It held that where a husband's evidence, at first instance, ex facie establishes the alleged adultery, a court cannot mechanically postpone all scrutiny of a Section 125(4) objection to the final trial — doing so would render the statutory bar meaningless. The matter was remanded to the Trial Court to decide the husband's Section 125(4) application on its own merits; the Supreme Court did not itself rule on whether the wife's alleged adultery was in fact proved, nor did it finally deny her maintenance.
General information, not legal advice. This is a plain-language summary for awareness only. Every case turns on its own facts, and this judgment does not decide how a court will rule in your matter. For advice on your own case, speak to an independent advocate — MyCaseFile is not a law firm and does not interpret judgments for anyone's case.