High court docket in Punjab and Haryana denies everlasting upkeep beneath Hindu marriage legislation to spouse caught in adultery

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently denied permanent alimony to a woman engaged in adultery after a divorce decree was issued for such adultery.

The applicant wife in this case appealed the judgment of the Family Court, Ambala, in whose judgment the Family Court granted the petition for divorce submitted by the defendant husband under Sections 13(1)(i) and 13(). 1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The facts leading to the petition were that the applicant and the defendant had been legally married since 1989 under Hindu marriage law. The defendant husband filed for divorce in the Ambala Family Court on the grounds that his wife’s behavior had been extremely rude and aggressive from the beginning of their marriage and that his wife had previously abused, insulted and humiliated him and his family members, who constantly complained about made fun of the defendant’s financial situation and also called him “Namard” – all these events made him mentally ill.

In addition, the defendant submitted before the trial court that his wife formed an intimate relationship with another man (the second defendant), which circumstances caused him to leave home in 2006. It was also on record that his wife and the second respondent did telephone each other and that the second respondent visited his wife when the husband was absent, which the husband was able to prove through various witnesses. Accordingly, the defendant husband filed for divorce on the grounds of “cruelty” and “adultery.”

The trial court, based on the husband’s allegations, issued a divorce decree under sections 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, confirming both cruelty and adultery as alleged by the husband . Against the background of this decree, the applicant’s wife brought a claim for maintenance in the High Court.

The Chamber of Justices Ritu Bahri and Justice Nidhi Gupta ruled that the applicant’s wife was not entitled to any maintenance payments from the respondent’s husband.

The Court distinguished the facts of the present case from the facts of its decisions in Anil Kumar Sharma v. Asha Sharma, 2014 (36) RCR (Civil) 812 and the Delhi High Court decision in Pradeep Kumar Sharma v. Deepika Sharma, Crl. Rev. P. No. 417 of 2021, noting that in these cases permanent postdivorce alimony was claimed on the basis of cruelty, not adultery, and the wife was therefore entitled to alimony.

In addition, the court also distinguished the facts in Valsarajan v. Saraswathy, 2003(3) RCR (Criminal) 665, a decision of the Kerala High Court on which the applicant’s wife relied on the facts available, finding that in Valsarajan the wife lived with another after the divorce Husband together, as opposed to the present matter where the wife was living in adultery before the trial court issued a divorce decree.

Noting that the wife was liable not only for “cruelty” but also for “adultery”, the court dismissed the claim on the grounds that the petitioner was not entitled to permanent alimony.

Case title: ABC vs. XYZ and Anr.

Case No.: FAO-M-132-2009 (O&M)

Before: Judge Ritu Bahri and Judge Nidhi Gupta

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 283

Click here to read/download the order