'One Or Two Lapses Not Same As Living In Adultery': Patna HC Upholds Maintenance To Wife, Daughter
The court rejected a plea by the husband that his wife was living in adultery with her brother-in-law, so she was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC
The Patna High Court has said that adulterous life is no doubt a disqualification for any wife to get maintenance from her husband under Section 125 CrPC; however, any physical relationship of a lady with any person prior to her marriage does not come within the definition of 'adultery" because adultery is an offence against one's spouse.
A single-judge bench of Jitendra Kumar said the adulterous life of any wife subsequent to her marriage is undoubtedly a disqualification for any married wife to get maintenance from her husband.
'However, 'living in adultery' denotes a continuous course of conduct and not isolated acts of immorality. 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 lapses and a return 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 bench said.
The court rejected a plea by the husband that his wife was living in adultery with her brother-in-law, so she was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC.
Even the plea of the petitioner that the woman is now divorced and she is not entitled to get maintenance under Section 125 CrPC was rejected.
'As per Explanation (b) to Section 125(1) CrPC, wife includes even divorced wife and she is entitled to get maintenance under Section 125 CrPC if she has not remarried and it is not a case of the petitioner that his divorced wife has remarried," the bench said.
The bench upheld the order by the Family Court, Bhagalpur, which directed the petitioner to pay Rs 3,000 per month to his wife and Rs 2,000 per month to his daughter towards their maintenance.
It noted that, except for the allegation that his wife was having an illicit relationship with her brother-in-law prior to and subsequent to the marriage, there were no specific details regarding such a life of his wife. Even the conduct of the petitioner/husband during the subsistence of the marriage does not show that he was serious about his allegation, the court said.
The bench pointed out, 'No such allegation has been made in his divorce petition, which was filed not on the ground of adultery but on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Moreover, as per his pleadings, he was always ready to keep his wife with him. Such willingness on the part of a husband is not possible if he believes that his wife has been indulging in an adulterous life. Hence, the petitioner has not proved that his wife was living in adultery."
As per the claim of the wife, her husband-petitioner herein was having an illicit relationship with another lady, and hence, he was subjecting her to ill-treatment/cruelty, and she was constrained to leave her matrimonial home to live at her parental home along with the child.
Even in the divorce proceeding, the petitioner-husband could not prove his allegation of desertion by his wife. Moreover, one criminal case filed by the wife for alleged cruelty is still pending for consideration in the Court of SDJM, Bhagalpur, the bench said.
The petitioner-husband also claimed that he is not the biological father of the minor daughter, as she was born on August 08, 2010, whereas his marriage was solemnised on March 18, 2010, which shows that the girl child was born just after 4 months and 10 days of his marriage.
He claimed the child is not his legitimate daughter and that she, being born out of an illicit relationship of the wife with someone else, is the illegitimate child of another man, and hence, he is not liable to pay any maintenance to her.
On this, the bench, however, said it would be pertinent to point out that as per Section 112 of the Evidence Act, a child born during the continuation of a valid marriage between his/her mother and any man is held to be the legitimate son/daughter of that man, unless it is shown by that man that he had no access to his wife at any time when the child could have been conceived.
Relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Aparna Ajinkya Firodia Vs Ajinkya Arun Firodia, the court pointed out it was held that birth during the continuance of marriage is 'conclusive proof" of legitimacy unless 'non-access" of the party who questions the paternity of the child at the time the child could have been begotten is proved by the said party.
The court said the girl child was born here during the subsistence of marriage, though it is also not disputed that she was born just after 4 months and 10 days of the marriage.
Hence, in view of the law, as provided in Section 112 of the Evidence Act, 1872, she was presumed to be the legitimate daughter of the petitioner because it had already been found that the marriage between her mother and the petitioner was valid and subsisting. The presumption regarding the paternity could have been rebutted only by the petitioner pleading and proving his non-access to the mother at the time when the child could have been conceived, the bench said.
'But I find that there is no such pleadings and evidence on behalf of the petitioner that before marriage, he had no access to or relationship with the wife, except the bald allegation on his part that his wife was having illicit relationship with her brother-in-law prior and subsequent to the marriage," the judge said.
The court also pointed out that the petitioner has never filed any matrimonial petition before a family court or any civil court regarding a declaration in regard to the paternity of the child.
The bench also rejected the petitioner's plea that the woman was not his legally wedded wife on the ground that his marriage with her was forcibly solemnised.
'However, I find that, as per the evidence, that the marriage was solemnised as per Hindu Rites and Customs at Temple without any application of force. Moreover, I find that the petitioner has never filed any matrimonial petition for annulment of his marriage, either under Section 11 or 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act. I further find that he has filed only a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and it goes without saying that divorce petition is filed by the husband only against his legally wedded wife. Hence, the plea of the petitioner that the woman was not his legally wedded wife, has no substance," the judge said.
The court also emphasised that a strict standard of proof is not required in a proceeding under Section 125 of CrPC, unlike in matrimonial proceedings, where strict proof of marriage or paternity is essential.
top videos
View all
It said, prima facie, the court's satisfaction regarding the parties' marital status and the child's paternity is sufficient to pass an order under Section 125 of CrPC.
It has also been discussed and found that any finding regarding the marital status of the party or paternity of the child in a proceeding under Section 125 CrPC is tentative and not final, and it is always subject to the order of any civil court or family court, which are the competent courts to conclusively decide the marital status of the party or legitimacy or illegitimacy of the child, the bench said.
Watch India Pakistan Breaking News on CNN-News18. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated!
tags :
Adultery maintenance marriage
Location :
New Delhi, India, India
First Published:
May 14, 2025, 02:46 IST
News india 'One Or Two Lapses Not Same As Living In Adultery': Patna HC Upholds Maintenance To Wife, Daughter
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
JE transferred after outage
Junior engineer Dalendra Nath Chaturvedi posted at Sector-4 substation, Gomtinagar Extension was transferred to Sitapur on Thursday. He was found absent during a major fault last Sunday that disrupted electricity across several apartments in Chinhat. Technician comes in contact of high-voltage line, injured Jitendra Kumar , an ad-hoc power technician, sustained injuries after coming into contact with an 11 kV power line at the Amethi power substation under Mohanlalganj division. He is currently receiving treatment at a hospital in Ahimamau . Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Happy Independence Day wishes , messages , and quotes !
Time of India
3 days ago
- Time of India
Somwarpet farmers protest against land reclassification, forest dept takeover
Madikeri: Responding to a call for a shutdown by Farmers' Agitation Committee against certain orders from the revenue and forest department, including C & D, Section-4, and Section-5, the people of Somwarpet taluk joined in solidarity, leading to a successful bandh. Farmers whose lands were reclassified as C&D lands, were being taken over by forest dept under Section-4 notices, joined the protest. They blocked traffic in the town, demanding immediate govt intervention to resolve the issue. The bandh call led to a complete shutdown in Somwarpet, Shanivarsanthe, Kodalipet, Alur Siddapur, Shanthalli, Alur Siddapur, Nandigunda, Koothi, Tholur Shettalli, Gopalapura, Gaudalli, Madapur, and other places in the taluk from morning till evening. Shops and businesses remained closed, and traders supported farmers' cause, making the bandh successful. Despite the shutdown, some private vehicles were entering Somwarpet, leading farmers to block Vivekananda Circle, expressing their anger. As the roadblock continued, tahsildar Krishnamurthy and range forest officer Shailendra Kumar arrived at the scene. Protesters attempted to explain the issue to them. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Nguyen Trai: Unsold Furniture Liquidation 2024 (Prices May Surprise You) Unsold Furniture | Search Ads Learn More Undo The RFO's statement, "If you have documents, provide them," caused a stir, leading to a heated argument and confrontation with the protesters. They insisted on calling the ACF to the site and demanded the presence of district officials. Farmer protest committee president Chakravarthy Suresh stated that the land farmed since 1978 was being reclassified as C&D land and transferred to the forest dept. Despite meeting the chief minister, revenue and forest department ministers, and chief secretary over the past year, no progress was made. Tahasildar Krishnamurthy assured that the revenue dept would respond to farmers' issues. Protesters vowed to continue the roadblock until the district officials arrived. Then DC Venkat Raja, who arrived in the afternoon, listened to the protesters' grievances. He stated that a writ petition related to the C&D land issue was already filed in the high court. A factual report will be submitted after gathering information about those settled and farming in the deemed forest and C&D land for decades. He assured that a joint survey involving revenue, forest, and survey depts would be conducted to resolve the C&D land issue. Local revenue dept, gram panchayat development officer, and elected representatives will be informed during the survey. ACF Gopal, who also met the agitators, mentioned that a committee was formed following the Supreme Court and state govt directives. District-level committees led by district officials and taluk-level committees led by tahsildars are being established. At the village level, the village accountant, PDO, and RFO will be members. The report from the survey will be submitted to the govt, and villagers should facilitate the joint survey. Protesters demanded that no notices related to C&D and Section-4 be issued to farmers and that the forest dept should not enter villages for surveys until the joint survey is conducted. DC agreed to this and assured that local leaders would be informed during the joint survey, and only reports would be submitted to the govt. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
News18
17-07-2025
- News18
'Best Interest': SC Reverses Order On Child Custody After He Develops Stress In Mother's Absence
The Supreme Court reversed its earlier custody order and granted the child's custody to the mother, citing concerns over the child's psychological wellbeing. The Supreme Court reversed one of its previous orders wherein it granted the custody of a child to his biological father, and handed the child over to his mother, in a case of marital separation. This came as reports showed the child had developed anxiety and distress in the absence of his mother. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale considered a review petition by the mother, and stated that its review jurisdiction is limited and can only be invoked on grounds such as discovery of new and important evidence, error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason. As the court granted the mother the custody of her child, the bench cited serious concerns over the child's psychological health following the earlier custody decision. 'There is no room for doubt that in matters of custody, the best interest of the child remains at the heart of judicial adjudication and a factor adversely impacting the child's welfare undeniably becomes a matter of such nature that has a direct bearing on the decision with the possibility to change it," the court observed. 'Therefore, in the wake of new facts as detailed above, the review petitions at hand are deemed worth entertaining under Article 137 of the Constitution of India and require indulgence of this court", it added. The petitioner-mother and respondent-father were married in 2011, and a son was born in 2012. The couple began living separately and entered into an agreement to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent and agreed that the mother would have custody of the child, while the father would have visitation rights twice a month. A divorce decree was granted by the Family Court, Attingal, on June 26, 2015. The petitioner remarried and had a child from her second marriage. She lived in Thiruvananthapuram with her new husband and children. According to the respondent, he was unaware of the child's and petitioner's whereabouts from 2016 to 2019, and it was only when the petitioner contacted him in October 2019 to get signatures for the child's international travel that he learned of the remarriage and intent to relocate the child to Malaysia. Upon learning of the proposed relocation and change in the child's religion, the respondent approached the Family Court, seeking permanent custody. The petitioner filed a counterclaim seeking permission to take the child abroad. On October 31, 2022, the Family Court granted permanent custody and guardianship to the petitioner and allowed her to take the child abroad during holidays, while granting the father limited visitation rights. It found that the child had lived exclusively with the petitioner since he was 11 months old and viewed her as his primary caregiver. The psychological reports showed he found comfort in her presence and saw her new husband and younger sibling as part of his immediate family unit. The petitioner also alleged that after the judgment, the father made threatening comments to the child about separating him from his mother, worsening his psychological condition. Four subsequent psychological reports indicated continuing anxiety and distress caused by the fear of custody change. The Court noted that even though the respondent-father wished to reconnect, the child had not spent even a night with him and saw him as a stranger. It held that shifting custody would destabilise the child and cause further trauma. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
