The Chhattisgarh High Court has affirmed that a wife cannot be denied maintenance under Section 125 CrPC based on unsubstantiated allegations of adultery. The Court dismissed the criminal revision filed by the wife and minor son, upholding the Family Court’s order which denied maintenance to the wife on grounds of adultery but granted Rs.6,500 per month to the minor son. The judgment clarifies the evidentiary threshold required to invoke Section 125(4) and reinforces that stigmatic findings must be grounded in credible, not speculative, evidence.
The Verdict
The applicants, the wife and minor son, lost their criminal revision. The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the Family Court’s order denying maintenance to the wife on the ground of adultery, while affirming maintenance for the minor son. The core legal holding is that Section 125(4) CrPC permits denial of maintenance to a wife only if adultery is proved by clear, convincing, and reliable evidence - not by suspicion, stray photographs, or uncorroborated testimony. The Court rejected the intervener’s application for impleadment, holding that in summary maintenance proceedings, impleadment of an alleged adulterer is not mandatory.
Background & Facts
The applicants, Smt. Neha Pandey and her minor son Atharv, filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance from the respondent, Anil Pandey, a police constable. They alleged that the marriage solemnized in 2009 had broken down due to dowry harassment and cruelty, leading to the wife’s ejection from the matrimonial home. The respondent denied the allegations and countered that the wife was living in adultery with a man named Sher Singh Kushwaha, citing photographs from the Bhai Dooj festival and testimony from a witness, Shivani Kushwaha.
The Family Court, Bilaspur, by order dated 16.08.2023, rejected the wife’s claim for maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC, holding that she was living in adultery. However, it granted Rs.6,500 per month to the minor son, recognizing his needs. The wife challenged this order before the High Court, contending that the evidence was insufficient and that the findings were perverse. An intervener, Sher Singh Kushwaha, sought to be impleaded, arguing that the Family Court had made adverse findings against him without affording him a hearing, violating natural justice.
The High Court heard both the revision petition and the application for impleadment together. The intervener relied on precedents under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC and Section 10 of the Family Courts Act to argue that an alleged adulterer must be made a party before adverse findings are recorded. The High Court rejected this application, distinguishing between civil matrimonial proceedings and summary maintenance proceedings under CrPC.
The Legal Issue
Can a wife be denied maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC based on circumstantial evidence such as photographs and uncorroborated testimony, without clear, convincing proof of adultery? Is it mandatory to implead an alleged adulterer in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the Family Court’s finding of adultery was based on speculative material - photographs from a social festival and a single witness’s testimony. They emphasized that Section 125(4) requires proof of adultery beyond mere suspicion, citing Delhi High Court’s recent judgment and this Court’s own precedent in Bhaktvatsal Singh Rajput v. Vandana Rajput. They contended that the wife had offered a plausible explanation - that the man in the photographs was a brother-like figure - and that the Family Court failed to evaluate this. Reliance was placed on Smt. Uma Bai v. Hemant Singh Kanwar, where this Court held that maintenance cannot be denied on doubtful proof.
For the Respondent
The respondent’s counsel supported the Family Court’s order, asserting that the evidence - photographs showing the wife in close proximity with the intervener, coupled with witness testimony - was sufficient to establish adultery. They argued that Section 125 proceedings are summary in nature and do not require the same evidentiary rigor as civil suits. The Court’s finding was factual and based on appreciation of evidence, and thus not liable to interference in revision. They further contended that the minor son’s maintenance was adequately provided, and the wife’s disentitlement was statutorily justified.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court conducted a detailed review of the evidence and the legal framework governing Section 125 CrPC. It acknowledged that while Section 125 proceedings are summary, they are not devoid of procedural fairness. The Court emphasized that the bar under Section 125(4) is a serious one, depriving a woman of statutory maintenance, and therefore must be invoked only upon clear and convincing proof.
"The finding of adultery must be based on cogent, reliable, and direct evidence, and cannot be inferred from mere association, social photographs, or conjectural inferences."
The Court noted that the photographs presented were from a festival, a context where familial or platonic interactions are common. The witness testimony was uncorroborated and lacked specificity regarding the nature or duration of the relationship. The Family Court’s conclusion, while factual, was not supported by the quality of evidence required to invoke a statutory bar with such profound consequences.
The Court further distinguished the present case from civil matrimonial proceedings where adultery is a ground for divorce. In Section 125 proceedings, the object is to prevent destitution, not to adjudicate moral guilt. The Court held that the Family Court erred in treating the evidence as conclusive without applying the strict standard required for such a stigmatic finding.
Regarding the intervener’s application for impleadment, the Court held that in summary maintenance proceedings under CrPC, the presence of an alleged adulterer is not necessary for adjudication. The Court observed that the Family Court’s findings were made for the limited purpose of determining maintenance eligibility, not to adjudicate civil rights or impose liability on the intervener. Therefore, the absence of impleadment did not violate natural justice.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment establishes a critical precedent for practitioners handling Section 125 CrPC matters. It clarifies that allegations of adultery, while relevant under Section 125(4), must be substantiated with clear, direct, and reliable evidence. Photographs from social events, without additional corroboration, are insufficient. Lawyers must now rigorously challenge such findings at the trial level, demanding that the court articulate the evidentiary basis for concluding adultery.
The ruling also limits the scope of impleadment applications in maintenance proceedings. While an alleged adulterer may be impleaded in civil suits for divorce or restitution of conjugal rights, in summary CrPC proceedings, such impleadment is not mandatory. This reduces procedural delays and prevents misuse of impleadment as a tactic to derail maintenance claims.
However, the judgment does not overrule the principle that stigmatic findings must be avoided without due process. Practitioners should continue to insist on strict adherence to evidentiary standards, particularly where findings may impact reputation or future civil claims. This decision reinforces that Section 125 is a welfare provision, and its exceptions must be narrowly construed.
