The Supreme Court held that interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC can be denied to a wife if the husband produces prima facie evidence of her adulterous relationship. The court clarified that at the interim stage, the judge need not conduct a full trial but must apply judicial mind to the material placed on record. If the husband demonstrates ex facie that the wife is living in adultery, the court has discretion to refuse interim maintenance pending final adjudication.

Section 125 CrPC (now mirrored in Section 144 BNSS 2023) provides maintenance to wives, children, and parents who are unable to maintain themselves. However, Section 125(4) CrPC creates a statutory bar: a wife living in adultery, or who without sufficient reason refuses to live with her husband, or who is living separately by mutual consent, is NOT entitled to maintenance.

The critical distinction this ruling makes is between interim and final maintenance. Courts had historically been reluctant to deny interim maintenance without a full trial on the adultery allegation. This Supreme Court ruling shifts that position: even at the interim stage, if the husband places material on record that ex facie (on the face of it) demonstrates an adulterous relationship, the court can exercise its discretion to deny interim maintenance. 'Ex facie' means on first appearance — without a deep evidentiary inquiry.

This is significant because interim maintenance is often the more practically impactful relief — it operates during the pendency of the case, sometimes for years. The ruling thus balances two competing interests: the wife's right to financial support during litigation and the court's duty not to reward conduct that the statute expressly penalises.

For CLAT PG, the examiner will likely test the exact statutory bar (Section 125(4)), the meaning of 'ex facie', and the judicial discretion standard at the interim stage. BNSS equivalent is the key satellite fact.