Case Name:
Vijendra Versus Rekhabai & Anr.
Date:
15th April 2024
Bench:
Justice Prem Narayan Singh
Parties to the Case:
Petitioner – Vijendra
Respondents - Rekhabai
Subject
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that only a wife living a dishonest life and indulging in continuous acts of adultery can be barred from claiming maintenance under section 125 of the criminal procedure code. An isolated adulterous act cannot be a bar for a divorced wife from seeking spousal maintenance.
Petitioner, Vijendra approached the honorable court seeking to overturn the order by the trial court for awarding maintenance of rupees three thousand each to respondent 1 – wife and respondent - 2 daughter. The petitioner seeks to reduce the amount of maintenance as it is contended by their counsel that the wife is living a life of adultery and is therefore not eligible to receive maintenance under section 125 of the criminal procedure code.
Legal Provisions
Section 125: Order for maintenance of wives, children, and parents under Cr.PC – The section stipulates that a person with sufficient means must maintain his wife, his legitimate/illegitimate minor child, his legitimate/illegitimate child suffering from physical or mental abnormality, and his father/mother.
Brief facts
- The petitioner, Vijendra, sought divorce from respondent -1 rekhabai (wife) on the grounds of adultery.
- The petitioner was instructed by the court to pay maintenance of rupees three thousand to Respondent -1 ( wife ) and Respondent – 2 ( daughter ), each.
- Respondent -1 (wife) remarried. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present appeal against the family court order to reduce the amount to be paid for maintenance.
Issues
Whether a single instance of adultery can bar a wife from claiming maintenance?
Arguments Advanced for Petitioner
The counsel for the petitioner has forwarded the following arguments –
- The counsel for the petitioner, contented that the maintenance for rupees six thousand monthly is on the higher side.
- To further support their contention the counsel cited the case of M. Chinna Karuppasamy Versus Kanimozhi.
- The court in the above-mentioned case held that a wife living a life of adultery and dishonesty, after the divorce, cannot claim maintenance under section 125 of the criminal procedure code.
Arguments Advanced for Respondents
- Counsel for respondent contended that although now the respondent is married it cannot be used as a basis to prove that she lived a life of dishonesty and adultery.
- It was further contended that merely one instance of adultery cannot bar a wife from seeking maintenance. To stress upon their argument the counsel for respondent cited the case of SH. Pradeep Kumar Sharma Versus Smt. Deepika Sharma wherein the court observed that “only continuous and repeated acts of adultery or cohabitation in adultery would attract the severities mentioned under section 125(4) of Cr. P.C”.
Judgement Analysis
The honorable court held that the findings and the verdict put forward by the trial court were reasonable and supported by law. Therefore, it did not warrant any further reduction in the amount of maintenance to be paid. The court found the maintenance amount to be just considering the situation and the cost of living.
The court also stipulated that a mere act of adultery cannot bar a wife from seeking maintenance. If such a wife has committed an adulterous act and has returned to her life, she cannot be kept from receiving her due maintenance.
Further stressing upon the same the Hon’ble Court cited the case of Ashok v. Anita wherein it was held that – “A perusal of the provisions of section 125(4) of Cr. P.C. makes it clear that a stray act of adultery on the part of the wife does not amount to adultery within the meaning of section 125(4) and further does not disentitle the wife to maintenance”.
The court specified that ‘living in adultery’ means only continuous and repeated acts of adultery as was held in the case of Alert Jagdeeshwari v. Aleti Bikshaparhy and M.P. Subramaniyam v. T.T. Ponnakshiammaal. The court opined that a single instance of adulterous acts does not warrant the repercussions from section 125 of Cr.P.C.
However, if after divorce a wife continues to live a life of adultery and dishonesty wherein, she participates in adulterous acts repeatedly then she cannot seek maintenance.
Conclusion
The honorable court upheld the trial court's decision on the amount of maintenance for the wife and daughter each. The court held the amount to be just in present circumstances and with regards to the cost of living. Further, the learned judge illuminated what warrants the repercussions from section 125 for a wife who has committed a single act of adultery.
