The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently delivered a significant judgment clarifying that a wife’s emotional attachment to another man, without physical intimacy, does not qualify as adultery. Justice GS Ahluwalia emphasized that “adultery necessarily involves sexual intercourse” and dismissed a husband’s plea to deny maintenance to his wife on these grounds. The ruling reinforces the legal safeguards for women’s financial security in matrimonial disputes.
Key Highlights
The court rejected the husband’s argument that his wife’s alleged love for another man disqualified her from receiving maintenance. Citing Section 125(4) of the CrPC (or Section 144(5) of the BNSS), Justice Ahluwalia stated:
“Even if a wife has affection for someone else without physical relations, it cannot be deemed adultery. Denial of maintenance under this provision applies only if she is ‘living in adultery,’ which mandates proof of sexual intercourse.”
This interpretation ensures that mere emotional bonds, absent sexual conduct, do not strip women of their right to financial support.
Read Also:- SC Clarifies Prospective Nature of CST Act Amendment And Key Ruling on Permanent Injunction Execution
The petitioner, a hospital ward boy, claimed his monthly income was only ₹8,000, making the ₹4,000 interim maintenance order excessive. However, the court found his salary certificate invalid due to missing details like issuance date and location. Justice Ahluwalia remarked:
“Able-bodied men cannot evade maintenance obligations by citing low income. If he married knowing his financial limitations, he must still strive to fulfill his responsibilities.”
The judgment referenced the Supreme Court’s stance in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021), which prioritizes a wife’s sustenance over a husband’s income constraints.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: No Time Limit for Enforcing Perpetual Injunction Decrees
The husband argued that the wife was already receiving ₹4,000 monthly under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, making the additional ₹4,000 under Section 125 CrPC unreasonable. The court dismissed this, asserting:
“Courts must consider existing maintenance but are not barred from awarding interim support under separate statutes. The trial court rightly accounted for prior payments, and no illegality exists.”
This ensures wives can seek relief through multiple legal avenues without penalty.
Read Also:- UP Gangsters Act: Supreme Court Stresses Need for Strict Scrutiny in FIRs Under Stringent Laws
The petitioner alleged his wife earned income from a beauty parlour, but the court noted he provided no proof of ownership, rental agreements, or revenue details. Justice Ahluwalia observed:
“Bald assertions without documentation hold no merit. Interim maintenance cannot be denied based on unverified claims.”
The husband claimed his father dispossessed him of family property via a newspaper notice. However, the court highlighted that both the notice and the petitioner’s address listed the same location, proving co-residence. The judge termed the notice a “legal stratagem” to evade financial duties.
Case Title: Amit Kumar Khodake v. Smt. Madhuri @ Anjali
