New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday (July 31) urged the Union Government and the Law Commission of India to consider framing a legal framework to regulate the functioning of private detective agencies, observing that the absence of statutory safeguards raises concerns over privacy violations and misuse of investigative powers.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi was hearing an appeal filed by Himanshu Chordia against a Rajasthan High Court order that had dismissed his plea seeking to quash the rejection of his application under Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by which he had sought to resist his estranged wife's claim for maintenance on the ground that she was 'living in adultery'.
The appellant and Respondent No. 2, were married on 7th July 2014. After matrimonial discord, the wife left the matrimonial home on 13th May 2020 along with their child and filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC before the Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, PCPNDT Cases, Udaipur, along with an application seeking interim maintenance. The appellant opposed the claim by invoking Section 125(4), contending that Respondent No. 2 was in an adulterous relationship with another individual and was, therefore, statutorily disentitled from receiving any maintenance, interim or final. In support, he placed on record a large volume of photographs and video evidence, said to have been procured after the proceedings had commenced.
The Trial Court, while granting interim maintenance of Rs. 25,000 each to the wife and the child, disposed of the appellant's Section 125(4) application on the reasoning that the authenticity of the photographic and video material could only be tested once evidence was formally exhibited in the main petition. The Rajasthan High Court, in the impugned order, upheld this approach, holding that there was 'no provision in the Cr.P.C. that mandates adjudication of such an issue before deciding an application for interim maintenance', and that the question of adultery was a disputed question of fact to be gone into only at the stage of final adjudication.
Setting aside the High Court's view, the Supreme Court held that the statutory scheme under Section 125 does not permit the question of adultery to be deferred indefinitely to the final hearing. The Court explained that an application for maintenance and an application under Section 125(4) operate as distinct stages of the same proceeding, and that where the evidence placed in support of the Section 125(4) application is either 'admitted' or establishes adultery 'ex facie' at the very threshold, the bar under the provision would operate even at the interim stage.
"...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."
The Court clarified that the mere pendency of a Section 125(4) application would not, by itself, operate to suspend the payment of interim maintenance; such suspension would follow only once the husband's evidence is found, prima facie, to establish the statutory disqualification. Since the Trial Court had erroneously declined to examine the appellant's application on its merits, the Bench held that this constituted an error warranting interference, and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on the Section 125(4) application, with interim maintenance to continue in the interregnum.
Beyond the question of maintenance, the Court flagged a broader concern arising from the nature of the evidence relied upon by the appellant, a large cache of photographs and videos apparently procured through private investigators. Noting that 92 videos and 237 photographs had been placed before the courts below, the Bench observed that there exists no statutory body or regulatory mechanism governing how such material is collected, stored, verified, or used, despite the increasing reliance on private detective agencies in matrimonial and other litigation.
"...there also has to be some limitation to what these individuals can do in pursuit of their profession, some protections for them against allegations such as 354C IPC (voyeurism) and regulation of the data/photographs procured by the investigator."
The Court referred to The Private Detective Agencies (Regulation) Bill, 2007, introduced in the Rajya Sabha but never enacted, and to its own three-judge bench ruling in Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Meghalaya, which had held that private investigative material is not recognised under the Code and cannot be treated as evidence collected under law. It also discussed the evidentiary tests governing electronic material, referring to R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra on the admissibility of recorded conversations and to Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal on the mandatory certification requirement under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, for electronic records.
The Bench directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, and to the Chairman, Law Commission of India, to examine the need for a regulatory framework governing private investigation agencies, drawing, if necessary, on comparable legislation in jurisdictions such as Queensland, Ontario, the Netherlands and Singapore.
Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the Rajasthan High Court was set aside and the matter remanded to the Trial Court to decide the appellant's Section 125(4) application on its merits. The appeal was allowed.
Case Title: Himanshu Chordia v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No. 3171 of 2025
