Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Adultery and Maintenance
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that a wife can be denied interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if it is convincingly demonstrated that she is living in adultery. This ruling was delivered in the case Himanshu Chordia v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. The Bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M Pancholi, emphasized that the evidence of adultery must be clear and apparent for the restriction on interim maintenance to be applicable.
Case Background and Initial Proceedings
The case emerged from a marital conflict involving a couple married in July 2014. Their relationship deteriorated over the years, resulting in the wife leaving the matrimonial home in May 2020 along with their child. Subsequently, in November 2020, she sought maintenance, including interim maintenance, from a court in Udaipur under Section 125 CrPC.
The husband contested her claim by filing an application under Section 125(4) CrPC, alleging that his wife was engaged in an extramarital affair, thereby disqualifying her from receiving interim maintenance. He supported his allegations with photographs and electronic evidence. However, the trial court deferred the decision on his application, stating that the evidence’s authenticity could only be assessed during the main maintenance proceedings. It granted interim maintenance of ₹25,000 each to the wife and their son.
Supreme Court’s Intervention
The Rajasthan High Court upheld the trial court’s stance, leading the husband to appeal to the Supreme Court. The apex court critiqued the lower courts for not addressing the husband’s application under Section 125(4) at an earlier stage. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court should evaluate the husband’s plea before the final maintenance decision, remanding the case for reconsideration.
Privacy Concerns and Regulation of Private Investigators
The case also highlighted issues concerning privacy and the role of private investigators. The husband presented extensive evidence, including approximately 92 videos and 237 photographs, purportedly documenting his wife’s extramarital activities. This raised questions about the lawful acquisition and storage of such materials, potential manipulation, and the right to privacy.
More Read
The Court expressed the necessity for regulating private investigators, noting the lack of current oversight. It referenced a 2007 Bill introduced to legislate private detective agencies and urged the Ministry of Law and Justice and the Law Commission of India to examine this issue. The Court stressed the importance of establishing regulatory mechanisms to safeguard individual rights against intrusive investigative practices.
