The Delhi High Court has emphasized that the provisions of Section 125 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply only to continuous and repeated acts of adultery or cohabitation in adultery. According to Section 125(4) of the CrPC, no wife is entitled to an allowance from her husband if she is living in adultery, refuses to live with her husband for no good cause, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.
The Court was hearing a criminal revision petition seeking to set aside the order and decision issued by the Family Court on July 31, 2020.
The Court ordered Rs. 6000 per month in maintenance from February 14, 2012, to February 28, 2013, Rs. 6000 per month from April 1, 2014, to December 31, 2015, Rs. 7000 per month from January 1, 2016, to July 31, 2020, and Rs. 15,000 per month from August 1, 2020, until the wife’s death or remarriage.
The law on maintenance, according to Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, is a welfare statute that exists to ensure that the wife, children, and parents of an able and capable man are not left destitute in circumstances when they are unable to support themselves.
The petitioner Learned’s contention was that the impugned Order was clearly incorrect and absurd and hence, liable to be set aside.
It was argued that the wife was more than capable of supporting herself and earning enough money to do so, and the fact that she worked during the case’s pendency was also acknowledged by her during cross-examination.
It was maintained that the application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was not maintainable in the first instance because the wife had sufficient resources to support herself. The respondent contended that the petitioner’s charge of adultery against the wife was an afterthought and that there was no evidence to support the allegation of adultery against her.
The Court stated that the law derived from numerous Supreme Court and High Court decisions establishes the position of maintenance payment, ruling that cruelty does not deprive the wife of her right to maintenance. “Even in cases when a divorce is obtained on the basis of cruelty, courts have awarded permanent alimony to the wife, and cruelty has no bearing on the wife’s entitlement to maintenance,” the Court stated.
As a result, the Court concluded that the ground of cruelty and harassment was insufficient to justify the nonpayment of the support amount. As a result, the Court dismissed the petition for review and upheld the contested order.