The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that allegations of adultery, without conclusive proof, cannot override a wife’s statutory right to interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The judgment underscores the narrow scope of revisional jurisdiction and the imperative to prioritize the welfare of vulnerable spouses facing mental health crises.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Suneel Bhargav, and the respondent, Nidhi Bhargav, were married on 14.12.2004. Two daughters were born to the couple: the first on 28.09.2005 and the second on 24.07.2011. Both children resided with the petitioner in Gwalior. On 07.12.2020, the wife filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC, 1973 seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.50,000, alleging that she was unable to maintain herself and that the husband had neglected his obligation. She claimed she was forced to leave the matrimonial home on 08.10.2019 to protect her life.
Key Facts
- The wife was found unconscious and missing on 08.10.2019.
- A missing report was lodged and she was traced in Jammu on 26.10.2021 by local police.
- An undertaking dated 28.10.2021, executed at the Sakhi One Stop Centre, Jammu, confirmed her presence there and described harassment at the matrimonial home.
- The petitioner did not attempt to bring her back; her brother retrieved her from Jammu.
- The wife is diagnosed with severe depression and is under treatment by Dr. Rahul Mathur, with expenses borne by her maternal family.
- The petitioner alleged that the wife had an illicit relationship with one Neeraj Sharma from 2019 to 2021 and lived with him.
- The petitioner claims to suffer from severe cardiac condition with over 85% blockage.
- The wife filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent, which was later dismissed.
Procedural History
- 07.12.2020: Application under Section 125 CrPC filed by wife before JMFC, Indore.
- 28.02.2026: JMFC, Indore, passed order (Annexure-P/1) directing petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs.5,000 per month from 07.12.2020.
- 16.04.2026: Criminal Revision No.1522 of 2026 filed before Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the interim maintenance order.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the interim maintenance order dated 28.02.2026, arguing that the wife’s alleged adulterous conduct disqualified her from claiming maintenance and that his own medical condition rendered him incapable of payment.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a wife’s alleged adulterous relationship, unsupported by conclusive evidence, can disentitle her to interim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, and whether the revisional court may interfere with the trial court’s discretionary order on mere disagreement with factual findings.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that the wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home in 2019 to live with Neeraj Sharma, thereby forfeiting her right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. He relied on the dismissed mutual consent divorce petition and the alleged cohabitation as proof of misconduct. He cited Dr. Virendra Kumar v. State of U.P. to argue that his severe cardiac condition (85% blockage) rendered him financially incapable. He asserted that the trial court erred in ignoring these facts.
For the Respondent
The respondent maintained that the allegations of adultery were unsubstantiated. The undertaking from the Sakhi One Stop Centre explicitly cited domestic harassment as the reason for her departure, not consensual cohabitation. She emphasized her ongoing mental health condition and lack of independent means. She argued that the trial court had correctly applied the principle that maintenance under Section 125 is a statutory right, independent of marital fault.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court observed that the marriage between the parties remains legally subsisting, and the petition for divorce by mutual consent had been dismissed. The court noted that the trial court had meticulously examined the evidence, including the undertaking from the Sakhi One Stop Centre, which contained no mention of an adulterous relationship. The petitioner’s allegations of illicit conduct were purely averred and unsupported by any documentary or witness evidence.
The Court emphasized the limited scope of revision under Section 438/442 of the BNSS, 2023, citing Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh (2022) 8 SCC 2024:
"The scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect of an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be well-founded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings."
The Court held that the trial court’s order was neither jurisdictionally flawed nor legally erroneous. The amount of Rs.5,000 per month was modest and proportionate to the petitioner’s income as a Sub-Engineer and the wife’s documented medical needs. The petitioner’s health condition, while concerning, did not negate his statutory obligation to provide maintenance. The court declined to reappreciate evidence or substitute its view for that of the trial court.
The Verdict
The criminal revision was dismissed. The interim maintenance order dated 28.02.2026 of the JMFC, Indore, directing payment of Rs.5,000 per month from 07.12.2020, was upheld. The petitioner shall continue to pay the amount monthly until further order. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Allegations of Adultery Require Concrete Proof
- Practitioners must not rely on unsubstantiated allegations to defeat maintenance claims under Section 125 CrPC.
- Mere pendency of a divorce petition or uncorroborated assertions of cohabitation are insufficient to disentitle a wife.
- The burden lies on the husband to produce credible evidence of misconduct.
Interim Maintenance Is Not a Reward for Conduct
- Section 125 CrPC is a social welfare provision designed to prevent destitution.
- Courts must prioritize the financial vulnerability of the spouse, especially when mental health issues are documented.
- The quantum of maintenance must be assessed on income and need, not moral judgment.
Revisional Courts Cannot Re-weigh Evidence
- Revision petitions under BNSS are not appeals.
- Courts must confine review to jurisdictional errors or patent legal mistakes.
- Factual disputes, even if contentious, are for the trial court to resolve.
