HIMANSHU CHORDIA Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS AS ON DATED 31 JULY 2026
Supreme Court Strengthens Husbands’ Rights Under Section 125(4): Adultery Plea Cannot Be Ignored; Case of Udaipur Woman Arushi Jain Remanded After Husband Produced 92 Videos and 237 Photographs
In a landmark judgment with far-reaching implications for matrimonial litigation across India, the Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Himanshu Chordia, holding that a husband’s statutory defence under Section 125(4) CrPC alleging adultery cannot be brushed aside or deferred until the final adjudication of maintenance proceedings. The Court set aside the Rajasthan High Court’s order and remanded the matter to the Trial Court in Udaipur for a fresh decision on the husband’s application.
The case arose after Himanshu Chordia challenged the rejection of his application under Section 125(4) CrPC, alleging that his wife, Arushi Jain, was living in an adulterous relationship with Deepak Mundra of Udaipur and was therefore disentitled to maintenance under the statutory bar. The Supreme Court held that the courts below erred in refusing to adjudicate the husband’s application on merits and clarified that such a statutory defence must receive meaningful judicial consideration in accordance with law.
The judgment records that the husband had placed approximately 92 videos and 237 photographs before the courts in support of his allegations. Observing that electronic evidence of this nature is increasingly being relied upon in matrimonial disputes, the Supreme Court also expressed concern over the absence of any legal framework regulating private investigators. It directed that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Ministry of Law & Justice and the Law Commission of India to consider an appropriate regulatory framework.
The ruling is expected to become an important precedent on Section 125(4) CrPC, reaffirming that when a husband produces prima facie material in support of an adultery defence, courts cannot simply postpone consideration of that statutory plea until the conclusion of maintenance proceedings but must examine it in accordance with law
Main Issue:
Whether a husband is liable to pay interim or final maintenance under Section 125 CrPC when he alleges that his wife is living in adultery. The Court interpreted Section 125(4) CrPC.
Supreme Court:
1. A wife living in adultery is not entitled to either interim or final maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
2. An application under Section 125(4) (adultery) can and should be decided before the final disposal of the maintenance case if sufficient material is produced. The courts below erred in postponing the issue until final adjudication.
3. Interim maintenance continues during the pendency of a Section 125(4) application, unless the husband produces clear and cogent evidence that ex facie establishes adultery. Mere allegations are not enough.
Court’s Framework:
The Court clarified the stages of a maintenance proceeding:
Stage 1: Wife files a maintenance application under Section 125(1).
Stage 2: Husband files a Section 125(4) application alleging adultery (or other statutory disqualifications).
Stage 3: Final order on maintenance.
Interim maintenance may be granted at Stage 1 and will ordinarily continue until the Section 125(4) application is decided, unless adultery is established on the face of the record. Evidence required. Direct evidence may justify denial of interim maintenance immediately. Circumstantial or electronic evidence (photos, videos, call records, etc.) usually requires examination and verification before adultery can be held proved. Electronic evidence must satisfy Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act requirements.
What happened in this case:
The trial court refused to decide the husband’s adultery application and granted ₹25,000 each to the wife and the child as interim maintenance. The Rajasthan High Court upheld that approach. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court to decide the Section 125(4) application on merits.
Important observations on private investigators:
1. The Court noticed that the husband relied on numerous photographs and videos allegedly obtained through private detectives and observed:
2. India currently lacks a regulatory framework for private detective agencies.
3. There are serious concerns regarding privacy, data protection, authenticity of digital evidence, surveillance methods, and storage of collected material.
4. The Court directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Ministry of Law & Justice and the Law Commission of India to consider appropriate legislation or regulation.
Appeal allowed of the Father. High Court judgment dated 04.02.2025 set aside.Matter remanded to the trial court for a fresh decision on the husband’s application under Section 125(4) CrPC.
Allegations of adultery cannot automatically stop interim maintenance, but a husband who produces prima facie clear evidence of adultery under Section 125(4) CrPC may defeat the wife’s claim to both interim and final maintenance.
