Jabalpur: The Madhya Pradesh High Court said that maintenance amount can be denied to a wife only if she is proved to be living in adultery, which necessarily means sexual intercourse, and even if a wife is having a love and affection towards somebody else without any physical relations, it is not sufficient to hold that the wife is living in adultery.
Justice GS Ahluwalia held this while dismissing an appeal filed by an estranged husband challenging an interim award of maintenance granted by a family court to his estranged wife.
Wife has love affair with somebody else and hence she is not entitled for maintenance, husband argued
The counsel representing the husband argued before the court that since the estranged wife has love affair with somebody else, she is not entitled for maintenance.
Read More
“From section 144(5) of the BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita)/125(4) of the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure), it is clear that only if the wife is proved to be living in adultery, then the maintenance amount can be denied. Adultery necessary means sexual intercourse. Even if a wife is having a love and affection towards somebody else without any physical relations, then that by itself cannot be sufficient to hold that the wife is living in adultery,” the High Court said.
Father has dispossessed from his property and therefore, amount of interim maintenance is on a higher side, husband argued
The husband submitted that he is working as a ward boy and his monthly income is only Rs.8,000 and his respondent wife is already getting Rs.4,000 and therefore, the interim maintenance of Rs.4,000 awarded under section 125 of the CrPC is on a higher side. He further submitted that his father, through a public notice in newspaper, has dispossessed him from his property and therefore, the amount of interim maintenance is on a higher side.
Husband still residing with his father and public notice is nothing but a camouflage: High Court
The High Court, however, noted that the husband is still residing with his father and the said public notice is nothing but is a camouflage and might be on the basis of legal advice given to his father. It also rejected the submissions that his wife herself is earning handsomely by running a beauty parlour and that half of the salary is being utilized to pay the maintenance amount to his wife.
“Meager income of the husband cannot be a criteria to deny maintenance. If the applicant has married a girl knowing fully well that he is not competent to even fulfil his own daily needs then for that he himself is responsible but if he is an able-bodied person then he has to earn something to maintain his wife or to pay the maintenance amount,” the High Court said while dismissing husband’s appeal against the family court order.
