In a recent ruling, several High Courts in India have addressed the issue of maintenance for wives in cases involving allegations or proof of adultery. These judgments highlight the varying interpretations and applications of Section 125(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and equivalent sections in updated legislations like the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which stipulate conditions under which a wife is not entitled to maintenance.

One significant case involves the Chhattisgarh High Court, which overturned a Family Court's order granting maintenance to a woman. The High Court sided with the husband, referencing a divorce decree that legally established the wife's adultery. The court emphasized that the divorce, granted on the grounds of adultery, served as conclusive evidence disqualifying her from receiving maintenance under Section 125(4) of the CrPC. This decision aligns with a Supreme Court precedent, Shanthakumari v. Thimmegowda, which states that a wife proven to be living in adultery during the marriage is not entitled to maintenance, and a subsequent divorce based on those grounds does not reinstate her claim. The Chhattisgarh High Court stressed that it could not disregard a valid divorce decree issued by a competent court, particularly when adultery was the primary reason for the marriage's dissolution, and that continuing an adulterous relationship after separation further negates the wife's eligibility for maintenance.

Similarly, the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside a family court order that had mandated a husband to pay interim maintenance and litigation expenses to his estranged wife. The High Court's decision was primarily influenced by social media evidence suggesting the wife was living with another man and allegedly committing adultery. The court acknowledged the potential for digital evidence manipulation but emphasized that it could not dismiss the material outright. It noted the wife's failure to clarify her relationship with the other man. The court asserted that the husband should not be unduly burdened for his wife's misconduct, suggesting that social media footprints, including photographs and text exchanges, can be considered for evidentiary purposes in such cases.

However, other High Courts have adopted a nuanced approach. The Madhya Pradesh High Court clarified that "a stray act of adultery" does not disqualify a wife from claiming maintenance. The court emphasized that Section 125(4) of the CrPC refers to "living in adultery," implying a continuous and ongoing state of adulterous conduct rather than isolated incidents. It stated that a mere lapse or two, followed by a return to normal life, does not constitute "living in adultery." In a similar vein, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that a wife's love for another man without a physical relationship does not constitute adultery. The court emphasized that adultery necessitates sexual intercourse and that emotional involvement alone is insufficient to deny maintenance.

The Allahabad High Court has also weighed in on the matter, emphasizing that courts must address allegations of adultery before awarding interim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. The court stated that if a husband makes a categorical allegation of adultery against his wife, the court must first decide on the issue of adultery before awarding interim maintenance.

These rulings collectively underscore the complex and fact-dependent nature of maintenance cases involving adultery allegations. While proven adultery can disqualify a wife from receiving maintenance, courts often require substantial evidence of continuous adulterous conduct. Furthermore, the definition of adultery itself can be subject to interpretation, with some courts requiring proof of physical relations and not merely emotional involvement. The overarching principle remains that the husband has the burden of proving the wife's adulterous conduct to be relieved of his maintenance obligations.