Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a wife's love and affection for someone other than her husband does not constitute adultery unless there is a physical relationship.

A Single judge bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia dismissed a husband’s plea challenging the grant of interim maintenance to his wife. The court affirmed that a wife can be denied maintenance if proved to be living in adultery, however, it necessarily involves a sexual relationship with another man.

“From Section 144(5) of the BNSS/125(4) of the Cr.P.C. it is clear that only if the wife is proved to be living in adultery, then the maintenance amount can be denied…. Even if a wife is having a love and affection towards somebody else without any physical relations, then that by itself cannot be sufficient to hold that the wife is living in adultery,” the court remarked, emphasising that adultery necessarily means sexual intercourse.

The court was hearing a revision petition filed by the husband against the order of the Family Court, which had directed him to pay ₹4,000 per month as interim maintenance. The petitioner, a Ward Boy earning ₹8,000 per month, argued that his wife was already receiving ₹4,000 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, making additional maintenance excessive. The husband also claimed that his wife was running a beauty parlour and was financially independent.

The applicant husband claimed that his father had dispossessed him of family property through a public notice, leaving him financially strained. Additionally, he presented a diary entry allegedly written by his wife, which he argued showed she was in a relationship with another man and had threatened self-harm. On these grounds, it was contended that she was not entitled to maintenance.

The wife, on the other hand, asserted that her husband had misrepresented his financial and property status before marriage and had subjected her to physical abuse and cruelty. She also denied allegations of adultery and maintained that she had no independent income.

The court held that the husband could not provide any evidence in support of the allegations made by him. With regards the contention of the wife being financially independent, the court noted, “Mere bald submission that wife is running a beauty parlour is not sufficient to deny interim maintenance to her.”

The court also rejected the husband's argument that his limited income made it difficult for him to pay maintenance, stating that “meager income of the husband cannot be a criteria to deny maintenance. If the applicant has married a girl knowing fully well that he is not competent to even fulfil his own daily needs then for that he himself is responsible but if he is an able-bodied person then he has to earn something to maintain his wife or to pay the maintenance amount.”

The husband's dispossession claim was also dismissed by the court, as records indicated he continued to reside with his father, suggesting the public notice was a legal ruse.

Finding no illegality in the additional maintenance ordered by the Family court, the High Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the interim maintenance of ₹4,000 was justified.

 

Case Number: CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4006 of 2024

Appearance: Advocate Vitthal Rao Jumre appeared for the applicant.