Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points: The court clarified that interim maintenance can be granted without a preliminary adjudication on issues related to infidelity or adulterous life. Such issues should be examined during the main proceedings rather than as a condition for granting interim maintenance [judgement_subject]. The court emphasized that the entitlement of a spouse to maintenance must be determined based on evidence presented during the main proceedings. Issues of infidelity are relevant but should be considered in the final hearing, not as a preliminary matter [judgement_subject]. The court held that there is no legal requirement in the relevant procedural provisions to decide issues of infidelity before granting interim maintenance. The trial court had already considered the opportunity to examine such issues before passing the interim maintenance order, and these matters are pending review in the revision proceedings (!) . The court noted that the challenge to the interim maintenance order on grounds of infidelity is essentially a rebuttal of the main issue—whether the wife is entitled to maintenance. As such, these issues are disputed and require evidence, which should be examined at the final stage, not during the interim phase (!) . The petition challenging the interim maintenance order was dismissed as lacking merit, affirming that interim maintenance can be granted without preliminary adjudication on issues of infidelity, which are better suited for the main proceedings (!) . The court acknowledged that the revision petition against the interim maintenance order is pending and that the issues of infidelity are being considered in that context, but they do not influence the legality of the interim maintenance order itself (!) . The court reiterated that the main proceedings should resolve all factual disputes, including issues of fidelity, during the final trial, and not as a prerequisite for interim relief (!) . Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.

HIMANSHU CHORDIA vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(RAJ) 494

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI, J
HIMANSHU CHORDIA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent

Advocates:
Dr. Kshamendra Mathur, Ms. Apoorva, Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, Mr. Manish Kumar

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The court clarified that interim maintenance can be granted without a preliminary adjudication on issues related to infidelity or adulterous life. Such issues should be examined during the main proceedings rather than as a condition for granting interim maintenance [judgement_subject].
The court emphasized that the entitlement of a spouse to maintenance must be determined based on evidence presented during the main proceedings. Issues of infidelity are relevant but should be considered in the final hearing, not as a preliminary matter [judgement_subject].
The court held that there is no legal requirement in the relevant procedural provisions to decide issues of infidelity before granting interim maintenance. The trial court had already considered the opportunity to examine such issues before passing the interim maintenance order, and these matters are pending review in the revision proceedings (!) .
The court noted that the challenge to the interim maintenance order on grounds of infidelity is essentially a rebuttal of the main issue—whether the wife is entitled to maintenance. As such, these issues are disputed and require evidence, which should be examined at the final stage, not during the interim phase (!) .
The petition challenging the interim maintenance order was dismissed as lacking merit, affirming that interim maintenance can be granted without preliminary adjudication on issues of infidelity, which are better suited for the main proceedings (!) .
The court acknowledged that the revision petition against the interim maintenance order is pending and that the issues of infidelity are being considered in that context, but they do not influence the legality of the interim maintenance order itself (!) .
The court reiterated that the main proceedings should resolve all factual disputes, including issues of fidelity, during the final trial, and not as a prerequisite for interim relief (!) .

Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.

Order :

BY THE COURT:-

1. The present Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.06.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court on an application under Section 125(4) & 91 of the Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioner, who is the husband of respondent No. 2, has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for getting maintenance. Alongwith the main petition , he moved an application seeking interim maintenance pending inquiry. The learned allowed the application and directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance to respondent-wife. A Revision Petition against the impugned order is pending adjudication before the Sessions Division, Udaipur. Though, the fact of filing the revision petition was not disclosed before this Court rather it was brought to the notice on behalf of the respondent-wife.

2.1. It is not disputed that ground of infidelity and the wife is living adulterous life can also be considered by the Court at the time of hearing on an application seeking interim maintenance. In the instance case, the learned Magistrate gave opportunity to the petitioner and then passed the order of interim maintenance and the legality, correctness and propriety of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document