Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that “a stray act of adultery on the part of the wife does not amount to adultery” and therefore does not disentitle a wife from claiming maintenance from her husband.

Justice Prem Narayan Singh, presiding over the case, provided crucial clarification regarding the interpretation of adultery in maintenance cases within the meaning of Section 125(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). “The expression “living in  adultery” connotes a course of adulterous conduct more or less continuous and not occassional,” the court said.

The court made the observation while hearing a Criminal Revision petition dating back to 2019, seeking the reduction of maintenance award on grounds of adultery following a divorce decree granted. In this case, the husband (petitioner) sought a reduction in the maintenance awarded by the Family Court, arguing that the amount of Rs. 6000 per month was excessive considering the divorce decree based on adultery.

The husband's counsel stressed that a divorced wife engaged in adultery forfeits the right to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). He advocated for the application of this principle in the present case.

In response, the counsel representing the wife (respondent) acknowledged that while the respondent has remarried, it cannot be conclusively determined that she was engaged in adultery. The counsel emphasised that “it cannot be said that she was in adultery and only on the basis of surmises and conjunctures, such type of allegations cannot be leveled regarding involvement of the respondent/wife in adultery.”

Additionally, the counsel argued that even if there was one instance of adultery, it does not justify denying the wife maintenance from her husband.

The court, drawing from the cases of Alert Jagdeeshwari v. Aleti Bikshaparhy and M.P. Subramaniyam v. T.T. Ponnakshiammaal, articulated that the mere occurrence of isolated instances of adultery does not automatically disqualify a wife from claiming maintenance from her husband. Instead, it is the sustained pattern of adulterous behaviour that renders her ineligible for maintenance.

The court further underscored the distinction between sporadic acts of adultery and "living in adultery." It noted that Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. uses the term "living" rather than "committing," implying a continuous and ongoing state of adulterous conduct. “A mere lapse, whether it is one or two, and a return back to normal life cannot be said to be living in adultery,” the court observed.

The court determined that there is no justification to interfere with the factual findings made by the trial court within the limited scope of revision. Regarding the amount of maintenance awarded, the court deemed the sum of Rs. 3000/- each per month for the wife and daughter respectively to be reasonable and not excessive.

Further, the court noted that the trial court meticulously considered various factors, including prevailing cost of living, in its assessment of the maintenance amount. Therefore, there is no basis for intervention in this regard.

Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, and the order of the trial court was upheld.

 

Cause Title: Vijendra v Rekhabai [CRR No. 790 of 2019]