Himachal Pradesh High Court
Family LawCriminal Procedure and Evidence

Unproved allegations of adultery cannot disqualify a wife from maintenance under Section 125(4).

PANJU RAM vs PARVINDA KUMARI

Himachal Pradesh High CourtJUDGMENT: September 23, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Unproved allegations of adultery cannot disqualify a wife from maintenance under Section 125(4).. PANJU RAM vs PARVINDA KUMARI. Himachal Pradesh High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The Family Court allowed the respondent-wife’s petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and directed the petitioner-husband to pay maintenance of ₹3,000 per month from the date of filing

Source reference: para. 1

The husband challenged the order, contending that the wife was living in adultery and was therefore disqualified from receiving maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC

Source reference: paras. 2, 5

The High Court noted that the husband and his mother had not personally witnessed the alleged conduct, the daughter said to have witnessed it was not called as a witness, and no neighbour or other independent witness was produced

Source reference: paras. 7, 9
02

Issues

Whether the wife was disqualified from receiving maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC on the ground that she was living in adultery

Source reference: paras. 5–7

Whether the Family Court’s award of ₹3,000 per month required interference in revision

Source reference: paras. 5, 11
03

Law Applied

Section 125(4) CrPC provides that a wife is not entitled to receive maintenance from her husband if she is living in adultery, refuses without sufficient reason to live with him, or the parties are living separately by mutual consent

Source reference: para. 6

The husband asserting adultery bears the burden of establishing that ground with evidence; an unsupported allegation is insufficient

Source reference: paras. 7–10
04

Reasoning

The High Court found no evidence establishing that the wife was living in adultery.

Source reference: paras. 7–9

The husband and his mother had not seen her in a compromising position; the daughter alleged to have done so was not examined, and no independent witness was called to corroborate the allegation.

Source reference: paras. 7–9

The husband’s sole ground for challenging the maintenance order therefore failed.

Source reference: paras. 7–9

The wife’s separate residence was undisputed, and her evidence, supported by her brother’s statement, was that the husband had ill-treated her.

Source reference: para. 11

The Court found no infirmity in the Family Court’s order.

Source reference: para. 11
05

Holding

The High Court held that the husband had failed to prove the wife was living in adultery and that the Family Court’s maintenance award disclosed no ground for interference.

The revision petition was dismissed, as were any pending miscellaneous applications; the Court clarified that its findings were confined to the issues decided in these proceedings.

Source reference: para. 12
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Original Court PDF

PANJU RAMvsPARVINDA KUMARI

Himachal Pradesh High Court · September 23, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment