The Chhattisgarh High Court has overturned a 2024 order of the Raipur Family Court that had directed a man to pay ₹4,000 monthly maintenance to his former wife, citing her adulterous relationship as grounds for disqualification from such relief.
The bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Verma came in response to two opposing criminal revision petitions filed by a computer operator from Raipur and his now-divorced wife. While the husband challenged the maintenance order, alleging his wife had been engaged in an adulterous relationship with his younger brother, the woman had simultaneously sought an enhancement of the maintenance amount to ₹20,000 per month.
According to the man’s petition, the family court had failed to consider his financial condition and had ignored the fact that he had secured a divorce in 2023 under the Hindu Marriage Act on grounds of adultery. He asserted that under Indian law, a wife who is proven to be “living in adultery” is not entitled to maintenance.
The woman, on the other hand, denied the continuous nature of the alleged relationship. Her counsel argued during the proceedings that there exists a legal and moral distinction between “living in adultery” and having had an extramarital affair in the past. The court was told that the two should not be equated, and a woman’s right to maintenance cannot be denied solely on the basis of isolated instances of misconduct.
The background to the case traces back to July 11, 2019, when the couple got married. The woman claimed she was subjected to mental harassment shortly after the wedding and was denied proper meals by her in-laws. In March 2021, she returned to her parental home following her mother’s death and has since lived with her brother.
However, the High Court did not accept the distinction argued by the woman’s counsel. Justice Verma observed that once a competent court had granted divorce on the ground of adultery, the divorced wife could not claim maintenance while continuing to live in an illicit relationship. The court emphasized that the law does not permit revival of maintenance rights in such circumstances.
Setting aside the family court’s decision, the High Court held that the woman’s proven adulterous conduct disqualified her from claiming maintenance under Section 125(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which bars relief to a wife “living in adultery.”
Read More: Top 10 Proven Tips for Junior Advocates to Earn Money in 2025
