Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a woman who is divorced on the ground of adultery as proved by her former husband, cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
In this regard, Justice Arvind Kumar Verma in his order said:
"Sub-Section 4 of Section 125 of the CrPC provides that if a woman lives in adultery, whose marriage is still subsisting, she is not entitled for maintenance from her husband. Suppose, a decree for divorce is granted on the ground of her living in adultery, can it be said that the said disqualification of which she was suffering from all along, during the subsistence of the marriage, will cease to exist, because of the decree for divorce?. The prudent answer to this question shall be an emphatic - "No". The decree obtained by the husband for divorce on proving the adulterous life of the wife cannot give a license to her to continue to live in illicit relationship and to get her right to claim maintenance revived. Therefore, I conclude that a divorced wife, who lives in adultery, viz., living in illicit relationship with man other than her former husband is disqualified from claiming maintenance, under Section 125 of the Code.”
Facts:
The court was hearing a plea moved by a man challenging a Family Court order, directing him to pay maintenance of Rs. 4000 per month to his divorced wife. The court was also hear the woman's plea challenging the quatum of maintenance granted.
Initially, the wife alleged that she was subjected to mental torture and character assassination by the applicant husband and his family, on account of which she left her matrimonial home and started residing at her paternal home. Thereafter, she filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance.
In the Family Court, the applicant husband argued that a few months after the marriage, the behaviour of the wife changed as she used to quarrel on trivial issues and that she had illicit relations with his younger brother. He alleged that the wife also threatened to prosecute him in false cases due to which he was under duress. Against this the two moved the high court in cross revision petitions.
The husband contended that the Family Court had failed to consider that he worked as a contractual employee and earned only Rs. 17,131 per month. Additionally, he argued that the Family Court also ignored the fact that the applicant wife was committing adultery with the younger brother of the applicant husband which was legally proven in an order passed by the Second Additional Principal Judge Family Court Raipur, and that the Decree of Divorce was granted in favour of the husband. It was argued that the order was against mandate of Section 125(4) of CrPC, which contemplates that a wife cannot claim maintenance if she is living in adultery, refuses to live with her husband without a sufficient reason, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.
Challenging the order, the wife submitted that the maintenance granted was inadequate and should be increased to Rs.20,000 per month, as she had no means of livelihood. It was further argued that 'living in adultery' under Section 125(4) CrPC implies a continuous adulterous relationship, which was not established, as both parties admitted she last lived with her husband on 01.03.2021 and has since been residing with her brother and sister-in-law.
Finding:
At the outset, the Court noted that the applicant-husband had filed divorce petition under the Hindu Marriage Act which was granted on 8.09.2023 on the grounds of adultery.
Holding that the applicant wife was disqualified from being entitled to maintenance in such circumstances, the high court said:
“If once the decree for divorce is granted on the ground of adultery, such finding is relevant for deciding the issue of adultery in the present case. The decree is a decree passed on proof of the claim made by means of sufficient evidence which has not been challenged by the aggrieved party.”
The Court further noted the decree of divorce granted in favour of the applicant husband was sufficient proof that the applicant wife was living in adultery, which barred her from claiming maintenance.
Setting aside the maintenance order, the high court allowed the husband's plea and dismissed the wife's plea.
Case Title: X v/s Y
