Introduction
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a husband cannot deny interim maintenance to his wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure merely by making allegations of adultery unless those allegations are supported by cogent and legally admissible evidence.
Justice Neerja K. Kalson observed that matrimonial proceedings cannot be turned into a platform for character assassination to financially harass or economically suffocate a spouse during the pendency of litigation.
Legal Issue
The primary issue before the Court was whether unsubstantiated allegations of adultery could disentitle a wife from receiving interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
The husband argued that the wife was involved in an adulterous relationship and therefore should not be granted maintenance. The Court had to determine whether such allegations, based mainly on photographs, were sufficient to deny interim financial support at the preliminary stage of proceedings.
Background
The matter arose from a revision petition challenging a Family Court order directing the husband to pay interim maintenance of ₹3,000 per month to the wife and ₹1,000 per month to the minor son from the date of filing of the petition.
The husband did not dispute the marital relationship or the maintenance awarded to the child. However, he contended that the wife had engaged in adulterous conduct and relied on certain photographs showing her with another man.
The wife opposed the allegations and argued that the photographs were selectively interpreted and did not establish any illicit relationship. She further submitted that vague and unsupported accusations could not be used to deprive a legally wedded wife of financial support during pending proceedings.
Decision
Rejecting the husband’s contentions, the High Court reiterated that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are social welfare measures intended to prevent destitution and ensure a dignified standard of living for dependent spouses and children.
The Court emphasised that maintenance is not charity but a legal right flowing from a continuing obligation. Referring to settled Supreme Court precedents, the Court observed that such provisions must receive a liberal interpretation in favour of women and children in line with Articles 15(3) and 39 of the Constitution.
The Court further held that at the stage of interim maintenance, it is neither proper nor permissible to conduct a “mini trial” into disputed allegations such as adultery, which require detailed evidence during the full trial.
Upon examining the material on record, the Court found that the photographs relied upon by the husband did not conclusively indicate any adulterous relationship. It observed that merely being photographed with another individual, including during social occasions or while accompanied by a child, cannot automatically create a presumption of adultery.
The Court stressed that allegations of adultery are serious and carry significant civil and social consequences. Therefore, such allegations cannot be casually inferred on the basis of assumptions, conjectures, or isolated material capable of multiple interpretations.
Conclusion
Finding no illegality or perversity in the Family Court’s order, the High Court held that the interim maintenance awarded was modest and justified in the circumstances of the case.
Accordingly, the revision petition filed by the husband was dismissed.
Case Name
XXXX v. XXXX
