Jahanvi Agarwal
The Delhi High Court clarified on 15th March 2024 an important aspect regarding the issue of adultery and its impact on a woman’s right to maintenance post-divorce. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh highlighted that isolated instances of adultery don’t constitute “living in adultery”. This clarification came during a petition challenging a decision by the Tis Hazari Family Court, which had granted a woman maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) after her divorce.
Justice Singh pointed out that consistent interpretations by High Courts across India have established that “living in adultery” implies a pattern of continuous and repeated adulterous behaviour. To invoke Section 125(4) of the CrPC effectively, a husband must provide clear evidence of his wife’s continuous adulterous lifestyle.
“The codified law and judgments of various High Courts settle the position with respect to a bar of adultery for grant of maintenance in favor of the wife. The law mandates that in order to extract the provision under Section 125(4) of the CrPC, the husband has to establish with definite evidence that the wife has been living in adultery, and one or occasion acts of adultery committed in isolation would not amount to ‘living in adultery,” the Court articulated.
The Court’s interpretation of “living in adultery” drew upon a precedent set by the Bombay High Court in the case of Pandurang Bakru Nathe vs. Leela Pandurang Nathe & Anr, 1997 SCC OnLine Bom 264. This case described living in adultery as cohabitation resembling a marital relationship with the continuance of sexual rights and duties, contrasting sharply with sporadic instances of infidelity.
The judgment clearly stated, “It suggests a man and the wife of another living continually as husband and wife. Adulterous intercourse is a condition contemplating the repetition of an extramarital relationship when opportunity offers itself.”
Furthermore, Section 125 of the CrPC outlines the criteria for maintenance entitlement, explicitly stating the exceptions for cases where the wife is engaged in adultery, among other conditions. The court reiterated that mere accusations of cruelty or the capability of the woman to sustain herself do not negate her right to maintenance. This stance is in line with the spirit of maintenance laws, designed as welfare measures to prevent wives, children, and parents from being rendered destitute.
The counsels representing the petitioner argued against the Tis Hazari Court’s decision, claiming it overlooked crucial evidence and misinterpreted Section 125. They suggested that the respondent (wife) was capable of self-support and had voluntarily left the petitioner to live with another man.
Despite these arguments, Justice Singh observed that the evidence presented did not conclusively prove the wife was living in adultery. The claim of adultery was introduced by the couple’s son, whose statements alone were insufficient for such a determination.
Concluding the matter, Justice Singh upheld the family court’s decision, emphasizing the importance of maintenance laws in providing necessary support to those in need, thereby dismissing the petition. This judgment serves as a crucial reminder of the legal threshold required to deny maintenance on the grounds of adultery, reinforcing the protective aim of such welfare laws.
Case Name: Sh. Pradeep Kumar Sharma v. Deepika Sharma
Diary Number: 417/2021
Bench: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh