The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently denied permanent alimony to a wife living in adultery, following a divorce decree granted on the grounds of adultery.
The appellant-wife challenged the Family Court’s decision in Ambala, which had approved the divorce petition filed by her husband under Sections 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The case began with the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband, who were married since 1989 under the Hindu Marriage Act. The husband filed for divorce, citing his wife’s rude and aggressive behavior from the start of their marriage. He reported that she frequently abused, insulted, and humiliated him and his family, often taunting him about his financial status and calling him ‘Namard,’ leading to his mental distress.
Additionally, the husband presented evidence in the Trial Court that his wife had developed an intimate relationship with another man, referred to as the second respondent. This situation led the husband to leave their home in 2006. Testimonies revealed that the wife and the second respondent regularly communicated by phone and met in the husband’s absence.
The husband’s claims were substantiated by various witnesses, leading the Trial Court to grant a divorce on the grounds of ‘cruelty’ and ‘adultery’ under Sections 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Following this decree, the appellant-wife sought permanent alimony from the High Court.
However, the division bench of Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Nidhi Gupta ruled that the appellant-wife was not entitled to permanent alimony. They distinguished this case from Valsarajan v. Saraswathy, a 2003 Kerala High Court decision cited by the appellant-wife, noting that in Valsarajan, the wife lived with another man after the divorce, whereas in this case, the wife was living in adultery before the divorce decree was issued.
The Court emphasized that since the wife was found guilty of both ‘cruelty’ and ‘adultery,’ she was not eligible for permanent alimony. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the wife’s claim for alimony was denied.
