The Supreme Court on Friday held that a wife found to be living in adultery is not entitled to either interim or final maintenance under the law, while simultaneously calling for a legal framework to regulate private detectives who gather evidence in such cases, citing concerns over privacy, voyeurism, authenticity of electronic records and lack of accountability.
In a ruling that could significantly shape maintenance disputes and the use of surveillance in matrimonial litigation, a bench of justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M Pancholi ruled that while allegations of adultery do not automatically disentitle a wife from maintenance, trial courts cannot postpone deciding such pleas until the conclusion of maintenance proceedings.
At the same time, the court said the growing reliance on private investigators to collect photographs and videos in matrimonial disputes has created serious legal questions that Parliament and the Law Commission should examine.
The judgment came in an appeal filed by a man against the Rajasthan high court’s refusal to interfere with a trial court order granting interim maintenance to his estranged wife, despite his plea that she was living in adultery and was therefore barred from claiming maintenance under Section 125.
Clear evidence needed to deny maintenance
Setting aside the high court’s order and remanding the matter to the trial court, the Supreme Court held that the statutory bar contained in Section 125(4) extends to both interim and final maintenance. “If adultery is proved, the wife claiming maintenance would not be entitled to the same as an interim measure and therefore, obviously, not even as a final measure,” it held.
The court clarified merely alleging adultery would not be sufficient to deny maintenance. Husband would have to place “clear and cogent” material before court which, on the face of it, establishes the allegation. “If the application for maintenance is to be denied at the interim stage itself, the party having filed the application under Section 125(4) must present clear and cogent evidence that would ex facie establish adultery,” it said.
The bench held that the trial court erred in refusing to examine the husband’s application under Section 125(4) and in deferring the issue until the final disposal of the maintenance proceedings.
Rajasthan case reaches Supreme Court
The case arose after the couple, who married in 2014, separated in 2020. The wife sought maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, while the husband opposed the claim on the ground that she was involved in an adulterous relationship. Relying on photographs, videos and other electronic material, he sought dismissal of her maintenance claim. The trial court nevertheless awarded interim maintenance of ₹25,000 each to the wife and their son while leaving the adultery issue to be decided later. The Rajasthan high court upheld that approach.
While deciding the appeal, the Supreme Court turned its attention to the manner in which the electronic evidence had been procured. The husband had placed before the courts nearly 237 photographs and 92 videos allegedly showing his wife in a relationship outside the marriage. Observing that the material appeared to have been collected through private investigators, the bench said the case exposed a complete regulatory vacuum governing private detective agencies.
The court questioned the legality and reliability of such evidence, asking: “Who took these pictures? Did they have any authorization to do so? …Whether these pictures sought to be adduced as evidence are in fact genuine…or have they been morphed? What are the implications for the right of privacy of individuals?”
The Supreme Court directed that a copy of its judgment be forwarded to the Union ministry of law and justice and the Law Commission of India to consider framing an appropriate regulatory framework governing private investigation agencies and the use of electronically collected evidence.