Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a criminal revision challenging the award of maintenance to the wife on grounds of adultery, a single-judge bench comprising of Prem Narayan Singh, J., dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the trial court’s decision to award maintenance to the respondents, finding no grounds for interference. The Court held that a single instance of adultery does not automatically disqualify the respondent from receiving maintenance.
The petitioner-husband filed a criminal revision challenging the judgment of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhar M.P., which awarded maintenance to the respondents (wife and daughter) at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month each. The petitioner argued that the maintenance amount was excessive, especially considering the grounds of adultery on which the divorce decree was based. The petitioner cited precedents and argued that a spouse engaged in adultery should be disqualified from claiming maintenance. The respondent countered, claiming that although she had remarried, it was not proven that she was engaged in adultery during her previous marriage. It was argued that even if there was one instance of adultery, it should not disqualify her from receiving maintenance and cited precedents to support her arguments regarding the interpretation of “living in adultery” under Section 125(4) of the CrPC.
The Court held that the findings of adultery in the divorce decree are relevant to the maintenance claim under Section 41 of the Evidence Act. The Court considered Pradeep Kumar Sharma v. Deepika Sharma, (2022) 2 HCC (Del) 427, Ashok v. Anita, 2011 SCC OnLine MP 2249 and Sukhdev Pakharwal v. Rekha Okhle, 2018 SCC OnLine MP 1687, to establish that continuous and repeated acts of adultery are necessary to disqualify a spouse from claiming maintenance. The Court emphasised that a mere single instance of adultery does not automatically disqualify a spouse from receiving maintenance, but continuous and repeated acts of adultery are required to trigger the provisions under Section 125(4) of the CrPC. The Court upheld the trial court’s decision and affirmed that the evidence presented did not establish continuous adulterous conduct by the wife. Therefore, the respondent was entitled to maintenance.
Furthermore, the Court found that the quantum of maintenance awarded by the trial court was reasonable, considering the circumstances and prevailing cost of living. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision petition.
[Vijendra v. Rekhabai, Criminal Revision No. 790 of 2019, order dated 15-04-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Piyush Shrivastava, Counsel for the Petitioner
Ms. Jyotsana Rathore, Counsel for the Respondents
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Shame and illogical. Then single act of collecting bribery, cheating, stabbing, murdering, defaming, contempting court, will not invite any offence. Is this justice applied with proper law interpretation?