Himachal Pradesh HC Rejects A Husband’s Plea That Divorced Wife Is Not Entitled To Maintenance If She’s Living In Adultery
The Himachal Pradesh High Court rejected a husband’s petition challenging the grant of interim maintenance to his wife on allegation of adultery observing that the maintenance was granted after the decree of divorce.
The husband filed an objection petition taking preliminary objections regarding the wife having concealed material facts from the Court and arguing that the wife was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. It was asserted that the wife was living in adultery.
A Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed, “In view of the binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the plea that a divorced wife is not entitled to maintenance if she is living in adultery is not acceptable”
Advocate J.R. Poswal appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate R.S. Jaswal represented the respondent.
A divorce petition was also filed by the husband which was allowed on the grounds of desertion, cruelty and adultery. The Trial Court held that the interim order of maintenance was passed despite the decree of divorce.
The wife filed a reply taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability and submitted that the husband did not approach the Court with “clean hands.”
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri (2000) wherein it was held that a wife was not entitled to maintenance from her husband if she was living in adultery. The Apex Court had clarified that the condition would apply when the matrimonial relations subsist and not after the divorce.
The Court remarked, “Since in the present case, the maintenance was granted after the decree of divorce, therefore, this judgment will not assist the husband.”
“The maintenance was granted after the parties ceased to be husband and wife and the decree of divorce and the findings recorded during the divorce proceedings would not affect the maintenance claim of the divorced wife. Thus, the learned Trial Court had rightly rejected the objection that the wife was not entitled to maintenance because she was living an adulterous life,” the Court held.
Consequently, the Bench held that “there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: X v. Y (Neutral Citation: 2024:HHC:5582)