A woman can be denied interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if her husband establishes that she has been leading an adulterous life, the Supreme Court has ruled.Interpreting various provisions of Section 125 of the CrPC on “order for maintenance of wives, children and parents”, a Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Vipul M Pancholi, however, emphasised on Friday that such adultery should be clearly established to deny interim maintenance to the wife.Writing the judgment for the Bench, Justice Karol held that if the husband alleged adultery, the court must first decide it before granting interim maintenance to the wife.It would be wrong to hold that it was only at the stage of final adjudication that such a question could be decided, the Bench said.Noting that sub-section (4) of Section 125 barred a wife living in adultery from receiving interim or final maintenance from her husband, the Bench said, “Since the stipulation in the Section 125 (4) (CrPC) is that if adultery is proved, the wife would neither be entitled to interim nor final maintenance, we are of the view that if a husband files an application under Section 125(4) and is, at the first instance, able to establish the charge through evidence ex facie, then only, there can be said to be a bar to interim maintenance,” it said.“The second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 125 provides for interim maintenance; and as such, the logical flow of proceedings would be that once the basic facts are established, an order is made for interim maintenance, and that would continue to operate till the application under Section 125 (4) is decided conclusively.  This is in view of the beneficent nature of the provision,” the Bench said.The verdict came on an appeal filed by a man challenging a Rajasthan High Court order dismissing his plea against the grant of maintenance to his wife by an Udaipur court on account of adultery. The Udaipur court had awarded Rs 25,000 each as interim maintenance to the wife and the estranged couple’s son.In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the trial court ought to have decided the appellant’s (husband) application under Section 125(4). It was incorrect for them to have observed that the appellant’s application could not have been decided prior to the final adjudication of the application filed by the wife,” the Bench said.Noting that the evidence adduced by the husband was electronic in nature, the top court said the court must consider at the stage of interim maintenance if the evidence so presented established adultery.“It is obviously open for the Respondent No. 2 (wife) to dispute the correctness and legality of the evidence presented, which would then have to be considered by the court,” the Bench said, remanding the matter back to the trial court to decide the husband’s plea on merits.Questioning the use of a private detective by the husband to procure photographs and videos of his wife, the Bench directed that a copy of its judgment be sent to the secretary of Ministry of Law and Justice and the chairman of the Law Commission of India to consider the issue of regulation of private investigators.