The Patna High Court has recently delivered a significant judgment clarifying the interpretation of "living in adultery" in the context of maintenance rights for wives under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Justice Jitendra Kumar, presiding over a criminal revision petition, emphasized that isolated instances of infidelity do not constitute "living in adultery" and, therefore, do not automatically disqualify a woman from receiving maintenance from her husband.
The case, Awadh Kishore Sah vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., arose from a maintenance order issued by the Family Court in Bhagalpur, directing the husband, Avadh Kishore Sah, to pay ₹3,000 per month to his wife, Soni Devi, and ₹2,000 per month to their minor daughter, Gudiya Kumari. Sah challenged this order, alleging that his wife was engaged in an adulterous relationship with his brother-in-law and disputing the paternity of their daughter.
Justice Kumar, however, found the husband's allegations to be unsubstantiated. The court observed that Sah had failed to provide any specific details or concrete evidence to support his claims of adultery. The judge stated that, "'Living in adultery' denotes a continuous course of conduct and not isolated acts of immorality." He further clarified that "one or two lapses from virtues may be acts of adultery, but would not be sufficient to show that the woman was 'living in adultery'. A few moral lapse and a return back to a normal life can not be said to be living in adultery. If the lapse is continued and followed up by a further adulterous life, the woman can be said to be 'living in adultery.'" The court also pointed out that any physical relationship prior to the marriage does not constitute adultery.
The High Court also addressed the husband's claim regarding the child's paternity, referencing Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act. This section establishes a legal presumption that a child born during a valid marriage is legitimate unless it can be proven that the husband had no access to his wife during the period of conception. The court noted that Sah had never filed any case to legally dispute the paternity of the child.
The Patna High Court emphasized the nature of proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., stating they are summary in nature and meant to prevent vagrancy and destitution of wife and children and to provide a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing, and shelter to them.
In light of these considerations, the Patna High Court upheld the Family Court's order, affirming the wife's and daughter's entitlement to maintenance. The court found the maintenance amount to be reasonable, considering the needs of the wife and child and the husband's financial condition. Justice Kumar dismissed the husband's petition, reinforcing the principle that a wife's right to maintenance should not be easily denied based on unsubstantiated allegations of adultery.
This judgment serves as a significant precedent, clarifying the legal interpretation of "living in adultery" and safeguarding the maintenance rights of women. It underscores the importance of providing concrete evidence when alleging adultery and reaffirms the court's commitment to protecting the rights of wives and children in maintenance cases.
