Woman in adultery cannot claim maintenance: HC

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a revision petition filed by a woman seeking maintenance from her ex-husband citing that she was living an adulterous life and cannot seek upkeep.

“When the petitioner is staying in adultery, the question of her claiming maintenance does not arise at all. The contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is a legally wedded wife and entitled for maintenance cannot be accepted in view of the conduct of the petitioner, who is not honest and is leading adulterous life,” Justice Rajendra Badamikar said in the recent judgement on the petition filed by the then 45-year-old woman in 2016.

The woman had filed a petition under the Domestic Violence Act in 2013 and a Magistrate court had granted her Rs.1,500 monthly maintenance and Rs.1,000 monthly towards rent apart from Rs.5,000 towards compensation.

The husband had challenged this before a Sessions Court which set aside the Magistrate order in 2015. The woman then approached the HC which has now given its judgement.

In the meantime, the husband had filed for divorce and it had been granted on grounds of adultery and cruelty.

The HC noted that “The oral and documentary evidence produced clearly establishes that the petitioner is not honest towards her husband and she has got extramarital affairs with the neighbor and all along, she asserted that she used to stay with him.”

Husband's affair

The woman alleged that the husband was also having an illicit relationship. But the High Court said it was disputed and she should not be pointing fingers.

“The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has also invited the attention of the admission regarding (the fact that) he is having (an) illicit relationship with (the) daughter of his sister-in-law.

Though that aspect has been disputed, since the petitioner is claiming maintenance, she must prove that she is honest and when she herself is not honest, she cannot pin-point her fingers towards her husband,” the HC said.

Upholding the Sessions court order, the HC said, “The learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate any of these aspects and in a mechanical way, awarded the maintenance and compensation, which is a perverse order. The learned Sessions judge has re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner in view of the fact that she was leading an adulterous life.”

Dismissing the petition, the HC said, “Considering these facts and circumstances no illegality or perversity is found in the order of learned Sessions Judge so as to call for interference by this Court. Hence, the revision petition being devoid of any merits, does not survive for consideration.” (CrlRP 56/2016)