The Kerala High Court has made it clear that a man doesn’t need direct proof to show his wife is living in adultery—circumstantial evidence is enough to deny her maintenance. This ruling is a strong reminder that Section 125 CrPC cannot be misused to extract money from innocent husbands.
KOCHI: The Kerala High Court delivered an important judgment that directly impacts thousands of men fighting false or exaggerated maintenance claims. The Court held that a husband is not required to produce direct or criminal-level proof of adultery.
Instead, circumstantial evidence is enough to show that the wife was “living in adultery,” which disqualifies her from receiving maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC.
Justice Kauser Edappagath explained that maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are civil in nature, and therefore the standard of proof is lower. A husband only needs to show, through surrounding facts and circumstances, that the wife’s behaviour leads to the logical conclusion that she was living an adulterous life.
The Court stated:
“When the husband alleges that the wife is living in adultery and thereby disqualified from claiming maintenance, he is not required to prove the adulterous act beyond a reasonable doubt, as in criminal prosecution under the now-repealed Section 497 of IPC. Instead, proof by preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. Adultery typically occurs in secrecy, making direct proof rare. Consequently, adultery can often be established through circumstantial evidence, provided the circumstances lead logically to that conclusion.”
This judgment came in a revision petition filed by a husband who was ordered by the Family Court to pay ₹7,500 per month as maintenance to his ex-wife. He argued that his wife was living in adultery, which legally bars her from claiming maintenance. However, the Family Court ignored his evidence.
Before the High Court, the husband’s lawyer argued that Section 125(4) CrPC clearly disqualifies a wife who is “living in adultery” from maintenance. The wife’s lawyer countered that only continuous adulterous behaviour—not a single event—can disqualify her.
The High Court agreed that continuous behaviour must be shown, but clarified that such behaviour can be proved through strong circumstantial evidence. What matters is the overall pattern, not counting the number of incidents.
The Court emphasised:
“Whether a woman is living in adultery or not cannot be determined on a numerical basis. The matter is to be looked into holistically.”
What Evidence Proved Adultery?
The Court looked into medical and counselling records that the husband produced. A psychologist who had treated the wife was examined as a witness. Her treatment file contained multiple entries revealing the wife’s extramarital relationship.
In the medical records, the Psychologist and Psychiatrist had recorded that the wife had an affair for one year and that she valued this extramarital relationship more than her marriage. The doctor personally noted that the wife “tends to have extramarital relationships.”
The Court found this extremely important. It noted that patients do not always openly admit every detail during therapy, but even the available notes clearly indicated her behaviour.
The Court also examined the testimony of other witnesses. One witness stated that he had seen the wife sitting inside a car in a compromising, semi-naked position with another man. The location data from mobile phone tower records further confirmed that both were indeed together at that time.
Finally, the Court found that the man the wife was allegedly involved with was himself undergoing divorce proceedings filed by his wife, where she accused him of adultery as well.
After analysing all evidence together, the Court concluded:
“The aforementioned circumstantial evidence are sufficient to establish the factum of ‘living in adultery’ on a balance of preponderance and probabilities to defeat the claim of the respondent under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The finding of the Family Court that the evidence on record is insufficient to prove that the respondent is living in adultery is against the settled principles of appreciation of evidence.”
Final Decision
The Kerala High Court set aside the Family Court order and held that the wife was not entitled to maintenance as she was found to be living in adultery.
The Court allowed the husband’s revision petition in full.
Explanatory Table Of All Laws, Sections & Principles Mentioned
| Law / Section | What It Says | How the Court Applied It in This Case |
| Section 125 CrPC (Now Section 144 of BNSS) | Allows a wife unable to maintain herself to claim maintenance from her husband. Civil in nature. | Wife filed maintenance claiming ₹25,000/month. Family Court awarded ₹7,500. High Court re-evaluated evidence. |
| Section 125(4) CrPC | A wife living in adultery is not entitled to maintenance. | Husband argued wife was living in adultery. High Court agreed, based on circumstantial evidence, and denied maintenance. |
| Standard of Proof: Preponderance of Probabilities | Civil cases require lower standard of proof compared to criminal cases. | Court held husband need not prove adultery beyond reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient. |
| Now-Repealed Section 497 IPC (Adultery as a criminal offence) | Required strict criminal proof (beyond reasonable doubt) for adultery. It has been struck down. | Court said this strict criminal standard no longer applies; thus civil standard is enough. |
| Evidence Law – Circumstantial Evidence | When direct proof is unlikely, consistent circumstances can prove a fact. | Court relied on medical records, counselling notes, witness testimony, tower location data & divorce petition of adulterer. |
| Case Law Citations (Multiple Kerala HC, MP HC, Patna HC rulings) | These judgments state: “One stray incident is not enough; there must be proof of continuous adulterous behaviour.” | Court accepted this principle but said “continuous” can be proved through a holistic view of all surrounding circumstances. |
| Section 498A IPC (False Case Filed by Wife) | Criminal provision accusing the husband of cruelty. | The husband proved that the 498A case filed against him was false (final report showed it). This strengthened his case. |
| BNSS 2023 (Revised Sections) | New criminal procedure code replacing Section numbers. | Court noted that Section 125 CrPC corresponds to Section 144 BNSS, and 125(4) corresponds to 144(4). |
- Case Title: X vs. Y (Names suppressed in order) Revision Petition (Family Court) No. 100 of 2023 Against the order in MC No. 135 of 2020, Family Court, Muvattupuzha.
- Bench: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath (Kerala High Court, Ernakulam)
- Date of Judgment: 19 November 2025
Counsels Appearing
- For the Husband (Revision Petitioner):
- A. Rajasimhan
- Vykhari K.U.
- Sharafudheen M.K.
- Anas Ali M.M.
- For the Wife (Respondent):
- R.K. Rajeshkumar
- Manoj V. George
- T.N. Bindu
- Abhishek
- Dhananjay Deepak
- Jijo Jose
Marriage & Dispute
- Marriage took place on 12 September 2003.
- Disputes arose; husband filed for divorce in O.P. 918/2019 – divorce granted.
Maintenance Claim
- Wife filed MC No. 135/2020 seeking ₹25,000 per month.
- Family Court awarded ₹7,500 per month.
Husband’s Defence
- Wife was “living in adultery” → disqualified under Section 125(4).
- Produced evidence: medical records, doctor testimony, witness accounts, tower location data.
Evidence Considered
- Psychologist’s Testimony (RW2):
- Wife admitted extramarital affair.
- Recorded: she “tends to have extramarital relationships”.
- Affair lasted “for the last one year”.
- Psychiatrist’s Medical Notes (Ext X2):
- Detailed mentions of wife’s affair.
- Eyewitness RW3:
- Saw wife and another man semi-naked in a parked car, hugging and kissing.
- Tower Location Evidence (RW4):
- Both phones were under the same tower at the same time the car incident occurred.
- Adulterer’s Divorce Petition (Ext B3):
- His own wife accused him of adultery with this respondent.
- False 498A Case Against Husband (Ext B1):
- Police declared the wife’s 498A complaint false, boosting husband’s credibility.
Final Finding Of The High Court
- Circumstantial evidence was strong and consistent.
- Wife was found to be living in adultery.
- Maintenance denied entirely.
- Family Court order set aside.
Key Takeaways
- Kerala High Court confirmed that a husband does not need direct proof of adultery; strong circumstantial evidence is enough to deny maintenance.
- Maintenance proceedings are civil in nature, so the standard is preponderance of probabilities, not criminal-level proof.
- Medical records, counselling notes, witnesses and tower location data together proved the wife’s continuous adulterous conduct.
- A wife who is living in adultery loses her legal right to claim maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC.
- The Family Court order granting maintenance was overturned entirely, reinforcing that Section 125 cannot be misused to penalise innocent husbands.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.