Himanshu Chordia vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.

This case arose from a dispute where a wife sought maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The husband opposed this by filing an application under Section 125(4), alleging that his wife was living in adultery with another man. He submitted photos and videos, likely collected by private investigators, as proof. The Trial Court and High Court rejected the husband's plea to stop interim maintenance, ruling that the allegation of adultery could only be decided during the final trial after evaluating all evidence. The Supreme Court set aside these orders. It clarified that while the law aims to prevent a separated spouse from starving, a wife living in adultery is not entitled to maintenance. The Court held that if a husband can provide clear, undeniable, and immediate proof of adultery at the very beginning, the court can stop or deny interim maintenance right away. It is incorrect to postpone this decision entirely to the final trial. However, if the proof requires a detailed trial to be verified, interim maintenance must continue in the meantime. The Court sent the case back to the Trial Court to evaluate the husband's evidence. Crucially, the Court also flagged concerns over unregulated private detectives violating privacy rights and urged the Government and the Law Commission of India to frame laws to regulate them.

A husband and wife separated after disputes, and the wife filed for financial support (maintenance) for herself and their child. The husband refused to pay, claiming his wife was having an affair, and presented photos and videos as proof of her adultery.

The Supreme Court allowed the husband's appeal and sent the case back to the local court. It ordered the local court to look at the husband's evidence at the early stage itself to see if it immediately proves the affair, rather than waiting for the final end of the case.

This judgment establishes that courts do not have to wait for years until the final trial to stop maintenance if there is clear, undeniable proof of a spouse's unfaithfulness. It also highlights the urgent need to regulate private detectives who gather electronic evidence by violating people's privacy.