Wife Cannot Be Denied Maintenance U/S 125(4) CrPC For A Single Instance Of Adultery: Madhya Pradesh HC
|The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a wife cannot be denied maintenance under Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. for a single instance of adultery.
The Court explained the difference between “living in adultery” and a single instance of adultery, reiterating that "living in adultery" meant only continuous and repeated acts of adultery and therefore it would attract the recourse of provisions under Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. provides that a divorced wife, who lives in adultery, is disqualified from claiming maintenance.
A Single Bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh observed, “In conspectus of the aforesaid legal position, it can be predicated that "living in adultery" means only continuous and repeated acts of adultery and therefore it would attract the recourse of provisions under Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court has considered the whole evidence placed before the Court and after considering the whole evidence found that on substratum of the single instance in living adultery, the wife could not be eschewed from getting the maintenance under Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C.”
Advocate Piyush Shrivastava represented the petitioner, while Advocate Jyotsana Rathore appeared for the respondents.
A husband challenged the maintenance awarded to his wife and daughter. The husband argued that the maintenance awarded was on the higher side considering that the trial court had granted the divorce on the grounds of adultery.
On the other hand, the wife admitted that although she had re-married, it cannot be said that she was in adultery and only on the basis of surmises and conjunctures, such type of allegations cannot be levelled against her.
The High Court noted that the findings of the trial court had attained finality regarding adultery.
“In upshot of aforesaid analysis in entirety and the finding of fact of the learned trial Court is not warranted to be interfered with by this Court using the limited jurisdiction of revision. So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, only Rs.3000/- and Rs.3000/- per month has been awarded in favour of respondent no.1 (wife) and respondent no.2 (daughter) respectively, cannot be assumed as excessive. The learned trial Court after considering every aspect and present scenario of dearness has properly adjudicated the maintenance amount, accordingly, it also does not warrant any interference,” the Court remarked.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: X v. Y
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Piyush Shrivastava
Respondents: Advocate Jyotsana Rathore