The Delhi High Court has ruled that a wife cannot be denied maintenance solely based on occasional acts of adultery. According to Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, such isolated incidents do not constitute “living in adultery” and, therefore, do not disqualify a woman from receiving maintenance after divorce.
The court emphasized that only continuous acts of adultery or cohabitation with another person would meet the criteria under Section 125(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). This interpretation aligns with past rulings by various High Courts, which have held that repeated and ongoing adulterous behavior is required to deny maintenance.
In the case at hand, the husband had challenged a trial court order, arguing that his wife should not receive maintenance due to claims of cruelty, adultery, and desertion. The trial court had previously ordered the husband to pay his wife ₹15,000 per month, starting from August 2020.
The Delhi High Court rejected the husband’s claims, stating that allegations of cruelty and adultery were insufficient grounds for denying maintenance. The court noted that even in cases where divorce is granted on the grounds of cruelty, wives are often still awarded alimony. The court reaffirmed that cruelty does not eliminate a wife’s right to claim maintenance.
The court highlighted that Section 125 of the CrPC and similar welfare laws are designed to protect spouses, children, and elderly parents from destitution, especially when they are unable to support themselves. It criticized the misuse of legal loopholes by some individuals to avoid their responsibilities.
The accusation of adultery in this case was brought forward by the couple’s son. However, the court found that his testimony failed to prove that the wife was living in adultery. For the provision under Section 125(4) of the CrPC to apply, there must be clear evidence that the wife was continuously living in an adulterous relationship. Occasional acts of adultery, committed in isolation, do not meet this requirement.
The court also dismissed the claim of desertion, ultimately upholding the trial court’s order for the husband to provide maintenance. This ruling reinforces the legal position that occasional acts of adultery do not bar a wife from receiving financial support, protecting the welfare of spouses in divorce situations.
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==
