The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a wife’s emotional attachment to someone else, without physical relations, does not amount to adultery and cannot be grounds for denying maintenance.
A Bench of Justice GS Ahluwalia made this observation while dismissing a husband’s revision petition challenging a family court’s order directing him to pay ₹4,000 in interim maintenance to his wife. The husband argued that since his wife was in love with another person, she should not be entitled to maintenance.
However, the High Court rejected this argument, clarifying that “Adultery necessarily means sexual intercourse. Even if a wife is having a love and affection towards somebody else without any physical relations, then that by itself cannot be sufficient to hold that the wife is living in adultery.”
The ruling emphasized that under Section 144(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), maintenance can only be denied if it is proven that the wife is “living in adultery,” which requires evidence of sexual relations.
Husband’s Financial Plea Rejected
The petitioner, who works as a Ward Boy earning ₹8,000 per month, also contended that the maintenance amount was excessive, particularly since his wife was already receiving ₹4,000 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. However, the Court dismissed this claim, stating that the salary certificate he produced lacked crucial details such as the place and date of issuance.
The Court further noted that his ability to work negated his financial hardship argument, stating:
“Meager income of the husband cannot be a criteria to deny maintenance. If the applicant has married a girl knowing fully well that he is not competent to even fulfil his own daily needs then for that he himself is responsible, but if he is an able-bodied person then he has to earn something to maintain his wife or to pay the maintenance amount.”
No Evidence of Wife’s Independent Income
The husband also alleged that his wife was running a beauty parlour and had an independent source of income. However, the Court found that he had failed to provide any supporting documents.
“Mere bald submission that wife is running a beauty parlour is not sufficient to deny interim maintenance to her, specifically when no document has been filed to show that either the wife of the applicant is running a beauty parlour in a shop owned by her or in a shop taken by her on rent,” the Court observed.
Final Verdict
The High Court also dismissed the husband’s claim that he had been dispossessed of family properties, suggesting that it was likely a legal tactic, given that he continued to reside with his father.
Ultimately, the Court upheld the family court’s order, stating that the trial court had not committed any significant error in granting maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC despite the amount already being awarded under the Hindu Marriage Act.
The husband’s revision petition was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that emotional affection, without physical intimacy, does not constitute adultery under Indian law.
