Married Woman Residing In House Of Her Father’s Friend Does Not Amount To Adultery: Patna HC Rejects Husband’s Plea Against Granting Maintenance To Wife
The Patna High Court stated that a married woman residing in the house of the father's friend does not amount to adultery.
The Court observed thus in a Criminal Revision petition filed by the Petitioner seeking denial of maintenance to his wife under Section 125 CrPC on the ground of adultery.
The bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhary observed, “…if residing in a house of the fathers friend amounts to adultery they are cannot be any social bounding in the society and if this Court is persuaded to hold that staying in the house of a old man of different religion by a married lady amounts to adultery than the entire social relation between man and man, man and women is to be looked into only in terms of sexual relationship.”
The Petitioner approached the High Court with the present Petition after he was aggrieved by the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court in a maintenance case filed by him where he prayed that his wife was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125(5) Cr.P.C.
Counsel for the Petitioner, Advocate Rabindra Kumar Choubey contended that the opposite party in her evidence stated that she was residing with a person namely, Israel Haque which was later corroborated by her mother. And as per the Petitioner, this amounts to adultery. Hence, she is not entitled to maintenance.
They further submitted that adultery cannot be proved by direct evidence. However, as per the Court, it can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and specific acts by a party.
The Court observed, “While the legal definition of adultery relates to the fact of having sexual relationship with a person other than the spouse, it is also regarded as one of the major reasons for denial of maintenance allowance to the wife and her divorce.”
The Court noted that in the evidence by the wife of the Petitioner and her mother, no evidence about the nature of the relationship was given.
While noting that the petitioner purposefully omitted the next lines of the deposition that Israil Haque, who is around 60 years of age was the friend of the father of Sobha Devi the Court observed, “It is needless to say that evidence must be read as a whole. A solitary statement made in the evidence by one of the parties cannot be picked up to put an imputation of illicit relationship on a lady.”
Consequently, the Court found the revision petition perverse and dismissed it with a cost of Rs.20,000/- to be paid by Petitioner.
Cause Title: X v. The State of Bihar
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate Rabindra Kumar Choubey, Advocate Minu Kmari
Respondent: A.P.P. Sunil Kumar Pandey
Click here to read/download Judgment
Next Story
