Path: Home » NEWS against MEN » 498A/ Domestic Violence » Madhya Pradesh High Court: Wife Loving Another Man Without Physical Relation Is Not Adultery

Madhya Pradesh High Court: Wife Loving Another Man Without Physical Relation Is Not Adultery

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently ruled that if a wife shows love or affection for another man without being in a physical relationship, it does not amount to adultery.

The ruling came while hearing a husband’s petition challenging a family court order that directed him to pay ₹4,000 as interim maintenance to his wife. The husband argued that since his wife loved another man, she was not entitled to maintenance.

Court’s View on Adultery and Maintenance

Justice clarified that under Section 144(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), maintenance can only be denied if the wife is proved to be living in adultery. Mere emotional attachment does not fall under this category.

The husband further argued that he earns only ₹8,000 as a ward boy, while his wife already receives ₹4,000 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, making the additional ₹4,000 excessive.

Salary and Income Disputes

However, the Court noted that the salary certificate produced by the husband was not reliable since it lacked details like the date and place of issuance. Unless properly proved, such documents cannot be considered.

The Court also rejected his claim that the wife earned money from a beauty parlour. No evidence or documents were filed to show she owned or rented a shop or earned any income from such business.

Husband’s Responsibility

The Court emphasized that being an able-bodied person, the husband must maintain his wife, regardless of his limited income. It observed:

  • A husband cannot escape responsibility by citing meager earnings.
  • If he chose to marry despite limited means, he remains duty-bound to provide maintenance.

The Court also dismissed his claim of being dispossessed from family property, calling it a “camouflage” likely created with legal advice.

Final Ruling

The High Court upheld the family court’s order of ₹4,000 interim maintenance, holding that it did not suffer from any illegality. The husband’s criminal revision petition was dismissed.

Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *