Crpc 125(4)

  1. An adulterous wife is not entitled for maintenance is my view.

Common sense says that Adultery is at the minimal level is breach of trust.

If breach of trust is a cognizable offense (Raja and Kanimozhi of 2G fame / notoriety have been booked under this as an after thought this involves tough prison sentence too) it beats me as to how breach of trust in a marriage is not a cognizable offense !.

Indian law discriminates men against women in this aspect.

2. Ref.: https://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/449750/

The Constitutionality of S. 497 was challenged before the Supreme Court under Article 14 on the grounds that it makes an arbitrary discrimination based on s*x in the cases of Yusuf Aziz , Sowmithri Vishnu and V. Revathi .

In the case of Yusuf Aziz the Court ruled that the immunity granted to women from being prosecuted under S. 497 was not discriminatory but valid under Art. 15 (3) of the Constitution.

In the cases of Sowmithri and V.Revathi it was held that it is the policy of the law to not to punish women for adultery and policies could not be questioned. Secondly, that it was not contemplated for a husband and a wife to strike each other with weapon of criminal law. And that adultery therefore was an offence against the matrimonial home and not either against the wife or the husband.

Considering the limited question of Constitutional validity before it the object of Section 497, as stated above, was never brought before the Supreme Court. The decisions of the Court therefore have erred to the limited extent of holding adultery as an offence against the matrimonial home.

Another interesting part of the above ref. judgment is that confirmed the alimony.

One side Hon’ble SC in various decisions on record says “we cannot change law r/w we are here to interpret laws further r/w legislatures should add / delete / modify Laws with changing times”

If this is what to be believed what Hon’ble SC says while deciding various Appeals before her then how the clear legislative wordings of S. 125 (4) CrPC can be changed / interpreted by SC is a question someone should now bring to Hon’ble SC attention. 

It is sheer in-human-the wife was divorced  for adultery and she is being rewarded!

Any one who wants to make a quick buck may marry a person who earns Rs.1 lakh / m, commit adultery, get a divorce get a regular income for life is what Hon’ble SC erred in granting to our desi abalas for life..

If she is adventurous, repeat the process by getting married again.

Do people in authoritative positon leave common sense at home?

section 125 (4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, if she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.

 Thus, all the circumstances contemplated by Sub-section (4) of Section 125 Cr.PC presuppose the existence of matrimonial relations. The provision would be applicable where the marriage between the parties subsists and not where it has come to an end. Taking the three circumstances individually, it will be noticed that the first circumstance on account of which a wife is not entitled to claim Maintenance Allowance from her husband is that she is living in adultery. Now, adultery is the s*xual intercourse of two persons, either of whom is married to a third person. This clearly supposes the subsistence of marriage between the husband and wife and if during the subsistence of marriage, the wife lives in adultery, she cannot claim Maintenance Allowance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."

Our indian law is biased and than would state that a woman after divorce becomes a destitute. And it would be stated that If she cannot maintain herself or remains unmarried, the man who was, once, her husband continues to be under a statutory duty and obligation to provide maintenance to her." In view of above quoted legal position, there cannot be any doubt that the plea of divorced wife living in adultery would not be available to her husband under the provisions of Section 125 (4) Cr.PC. 

All credit should be given to the biased laws of the country which even after 64 yrs of independence men are still prisoners at the hands of law since our laws have not yet changed .And yet we  talk about gender equality ............etc 

@ Tajobs .

In case a man prior to  divorce or before filing of a petition for divorce and before maintanence is passed goes in for  s*x change operation or say he turns himself into a eunich than in case of maintanence which  law takes its course .

@ Stanley,

The question is not rightly worded (grammar wise)

1. Nevertheless, on the date of maintenance application if no SRS done then he will be considered for adjudication as he in reference to context.
Reasoning:
Date of divorce gender r/w with follow-up application under maintenance laws and gender of respondent at that time when maintenance application filed is cause of action here.

2. Flip above; if after date of application for maintenance if SRS done then he will still be considered for adjudication as he in reference to context. 
Reasoning:
Date of divorce r/w with follow-up application under maintenance laws and gender considered at the time of dissolving the very marriage of respondent is cause of action here.

Common illustration:
Say On 01-12-2012 divorce of parties confirmed. On 02-12-2012 ex-wife files maintenance application u/s 125 CrPC. Now say on 05-12-2012 respondent / ex-husband changes while opting for SRS. Here SRS is done to change gender and inference is drawn to avoid maintenance yet prudent voice of applicant / ex-wife lawyer will always shout form roof top to consider date of application gender r/w gender status of very divorce dissolving a man and a woman’s marital relationships.  

There is fine line of commonality here as cause of action remains continuous is my view. Any better thoughts which I can gain insight of from your goodself please put them on board?

PS:
I think in a trial Court (?Keral?) there is this case pending, let me check with my ex Munshi Gulab bhai :-)  
 

If the divorce is granted on the ground of adultery....then she will not get maintenance u/s.125 as that is already proved that wife is unchaste.....