Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Permanent Alimony To Wife Who Committed Adultery & Cruelty

The Division Bench denied permanent alimony to the wife since she had committed not only cruelty but also adultery on the husband. The Husband placed on record all the evidence and witness before the family court which proved that the wife had committed adultery.
A Division Bench of Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Nidhi Gupta of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has denied permanent alimony to a wife on the ground that she had committed adultery and cruelty on her husband and that a divorce decree was passed on the same ground by the family court.
The appeal before the High Court was filed against the order of the family court which allowed the application of filed by the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Husband and the wife got married in 1989 under the Hindu Marriage Act, however, the husband moved a petition a divorce because the wife was extremely rude and aggressive. The wife also insulted and humiliated the husband and his family members. Further, the wife also used to comment on the financial position of the husband in front of the husband’s friends and family members. Since the husband-wife did not have a child, the wife also called him Namard (impotent).
The husband alleged that the wife had committed adultery by developing physical relations with another man and the same was informed to the family court. Sufficient evidence and record were placed before the family court proving adultery and cruelty. The family court then granted a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The wife in its appeal before the High Court also claimed permanent alimony from the husband.
The counsel for the wife relied on Valsarajan vs. Saraswathy, 2003(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 665 but the court rejected the same on the ground that in the said case wife was living in adultery after divorce and she was entitled to maintenance.
The High Court in its order rejected all the arguments and judgments relied on by the counsel of the wife stating that the said judgments would not be applicable in the present case and denied alimony to the wife since she had committed cruelty and adultery on the husband