Wife Living in Adultery before Divorce is Not Entitled for Maintenance: P&H HC

You are currently viewing Wife Living in Adultery before Divorce is Not Entitled for Maintenance: P&H HC

FAO-M-132-2009 (O&M) Punjab & Haryana HC as on 27 September 2022

Wife Living in Adultery before Divorce is Not Entitled for Maintenance: P&H HC

The brief facts of the case ,parties lived together as husband and wife. However, no child was born out of their wedlock. From the day one, the behaviour of appellant-wife was extremely rude and aggressive. She used to abuse, insult and humiliate the respondent-husband and his family members. She used to make taunts on account of the financial position of the respondent-husband and did not stop humiliating him in front of his friends and family members. The appellant-wife was suffering from some mental disorder to which the respondent-husband got her treated from a Psychiatrist. Since no issue was born even after ten years of marriage,appellant-wife started calling the petitioner as Namard (impotent), due towhich the respondent-husband became mentally sick. The appellant-wife developed intimacy with Sanjeev Pattar (impleaded as respondent No. 2 inthe petition), who was posted as Assistant Superintendent Jail, Central Jail, Ambala and was residing in the same locality. The respondent-husband left his house on 22.05.2006 and wrote many letters to Director General of Police, Inspector General of Police etc. to which inquiry was conducted by CIA Staff, Ambala along with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ambala. During the inquiry, it came out that appellant-wife and Sanjeev Pattar respondent No.2 used to talk to each other on mobile phones as well as on the official phone, which indicated that appellant-wife was guilty of treating the respondent-husband with cruelty and was living in adultery with Sanjeev Pattar-respondent No.2.

The respondent-husband had undergone acute mental cruelty as the behaviour of the appellant-wife was rude and aggressive towards him and his family members. She kept on saying respondent-husband as Namard (impotent) and had illicit relations with respondent No.2. On account of extreme mental cruelty, he left his own home on 22.05.2006. In this backdrop, issues No. 1 and 2 were answered in favour of the respondent-husband and he was granted decree of divorce under Sections 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Hon’ble court relied on evidence ,enquiry report by DSP Ambala and statement of servant of husband house and came to conclusion that wife is was living in adultery.

Learned counsel for the appellant had referred judgment . However, in the divorce petition, the ground for seeking divorce was cruelty and not adultery.

Learned counsel for the appellant has again referred judgment passed by Kerala High Court in Valsarajan vs. Saraswathy, 2003(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 665. The said judgment is also not applicable to the present case, as in that case, the wife was living in adultery after divorce and she was entitled for maintenance. He had further referred judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Subhransu Sarkar vs. Indrani Sarkar (Nee Das) 2021 AIR (Supreme Court) 4301. In the said case, the appellant was seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The divorce was granted by invoking jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India keeping in view that the marriage between the parties was emotionally dead and there was no point in persuading them to live together any more. The wife was granted permanent alimony of Rs.25 lacs towards full and final settlement. Even the said judgment would not be of any help to the appellant.

Keeping in view the observations , Hon’ble court dismissed the Wife appeal and denied the permanent alimony .

Leave a Reply