HC cites adultery to reject woman's maintenance plea

Raipur: Chhattisgarh high court has ruled against a woman's plea for maintenance from her estranged husband, citing her adulterous conduct as the disqualifying factor.

The ruling came when the bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Verma was hearing two criminal revision petitions challenging a Raipur family court order to the husband to pay Rs 4,000 monthly maintenance to his wife. Both parties had challenged the decision – the husband sought complete annulment while the wife demanded it to be increased to Rs 20,000.

Counsel for the husband argued that the wife was ineligible for maintenance as she was found to be in an adulterous relationship with his younger brother.

This was already legally established through a divorce decree granted by the family court on Sept 8, 2023, the husband's counsel said.

He contended that the family court overlooked this crucial evidence and disregarded Section 125(4) CrPC, which explicitly disallows maintenance for a wife living in adultery or leaving her marital home without a valid reason.

Arguments By Woman's Counsel In Court

The wife's counsel refuted the claim of adultery, arguing that any past extramarital affair was not a ‘continuous act' at the time she filed the maintenance application.

The counsel stressed that "living in adultery" necessitates an ongoing illicit relationship, which they claimed was not the case as the wife was then living with her brother and sister-in-law.

Furthermore, they argued that the Rs 4,000 maintenance was insufficient, considering the wife's lack of independent income and the husband's alleged multiple sources of revenue.

Court Cites SC Judgment

However, Chhattisgarh high court observed that the divorce decree, which was granted on the grounds of the wife's adultery, constituted legal proof of her disqualification under Section 125(4) CrPC.

HC referred to a Supreme Court judgment (Shanthakumari v. Thimmegowda), which established that a wife proven to be living in adultery during the marriage is not entitled to maintenance, and a subsequent divorce on those grounds does not reinstate her claim.

HC underscored that it could not override or disregard a valid divorce decree issued by a competent court, especially when adultery was the primary basis for dissolution of marriage. Justice Verma also noted that continuing an adulterous relationship even after separation further negated the wife's eligibility for maintenance.

HC allowed the husband's revision petition and set aside the family court's maintenance order. The wife's petition seeking enhancement of maintenance was dismissed.