Adv. Vivek Agarwal

25/08/2026

20/08/2026

Supreme Court: Adultery Allegation Can Block Interim Maintenance
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a wife may be denied interim maintenance if her husband presents clear and convincing evidence that an allegation of adultery appears true at the initial stage of the case. �

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi set aside a Rajasthan High Court order and held that courts do not necessarily have to wait until the final judgment to consider an adultery allegation when deciding interim maintenance. �

The court referred to Section 125(4) of the CrPC, which says maintenance can be denied when a wife is living in adultery, among other specified circumstances. �

However, the Supreme Court stressed that mere allegations are not enough. The husband must produce clear, cogent evidence that establishes the allegation on its face. In this case, the husband had submitted numerous photographs and 92 videos as evidence. �

The court also highlighted concerns over the growing use of private investigators, saying there is a need for regulation and accountability in the private-investigation sector. �

In short: The ruling does not mean every allegation of adultery automatically cancels maintenance. The court must first see credible evidence strong enough to establish the allegation at the interim stage.

20/08/2026

The observations were made while reducing the interim maintenance awarded to a wife by a Family Court from Rs 30,000 to Rs 25,000 per month.

The revision petition was filed by the husband challenging the Family Court's June 2024 order directing him to pay Rs 30,000 per month to his wife from the date of filing of her maintenance application.

Before the High Court, the husband argued that he was bearing the financial and educational expenses of both children, including the elder daughter who was pursuing an MBBS course.

He also submitted that his wife was an MBA (Finance) graduate, had rental and interest income and was residing in a house purchased by him. He further cited his own outstanding loans and liabilities.

On the other hand, the wife opposed the plea, submitting that the Family Court had considered the husband's income affidavit and Income Tax Return, which showed his income to be over Rs 63 lakh for the relevant assessment year.

The Court noted that both children were residing with the husband and that he was solely bearing their educational and financial expenses.

The Court also took note of the wife's qualifications of having MBA (Finance) degree as well as other degrees and diplomas in astrology and was capable of earning for herself.

It also noted that she was receiving rental income of Rs 10,450 per month and interest of approximately Rs 4,400 per month from fixed deposits.

19/08/2026

The Madras High Court recently highlighted concerns over the registration of POCSO cases arising from relationships described as consensual between minors, noting that such cases were being registered only against boys. The Court observed that the POCSO Act is gender-neutral, raising important questions about equal application of the law and the approach adopted by investigating agencies in such cases.

12/08/2026

The Delhi High Court has strongly rejected the argument that a girl’s choice of clothing could influence or “corrupt” boys, calling such thinking deeply troubling and unacceptable.

The observation came while the court overturned the acquittal of a man accused of sexually harassing his neighbour in a 2013 case. The woman had alleged that the accused repeatedly stalked her, made sexually coloured remarks and touched her inappropriately. The trial court had acquitted him in 2014, prompting the Delhi Police to challenge the decision before the High Court.

Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha criticised the defence’s line of questioning, which focused on the woman’s “western” clothing, the clothes she wore and objections reportedly raised by people in her locality. The court said a woman’s attire is a matter of personal choice and neither neighbours, society, an accused person nor lawyers have the right to dictate what she wears.

The court further said that the solution is not to control what girls and women wear, but to teach children to control their conduct, respect personal boundaries and treat others with dignity. It described the clothing-related cross-examination as irrelevant and improper.

The High Court ultimately convicted the accused under Section 354A(1)(i) of the IPC. However, it held that POCSO provisions could not be invoked because the prosecution had not satisfactorily established that the girl was a minor.

Source: NDTV/PTI, LiveLaw, Indian Express.



Delhi HC, court verdict, sexual harassment, women safety, victim blaming, gender justice