The Patna High Court has emphasized a critical distinction under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): there is a significant difference between a wife “committing adultery” and “living in adultery”. The Court ruled that a woman cannot be denied maintenance merely for a few isolated acts unless it is proven she was continuously involved in an adulterous relationship.
Justice Jitendra Kumar, in a detailed judgment delivered on July 7, 2025, addressed a revision petition filed by Bulbul Khatoon, whose maintenance claim was previously rejected by the Family Court. The High Court overturned the earlier decision, stating that:
“Living in adultery denotes a continuous course of conduct and not isolated acts of immorality. A mere lapse or two cannot constitute 'living in adultery'. Only if the lapse is followed by a sustained adulterous relationship can such a conclusion be drawn.”
Background of the Case
Bulbul Khatoon filed for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC in the Family Court at Purnia, seeking ₹20,000 per month for herself and her minor son. The Family Court, however, granted only ₹4,000 per month for her son and denied her any maintenance, citing allegations of adultery.
The allegations made by her husband, Md. Shamshad, claimed that Bulbul had an illicit relationship with a man named Md. Tarikat. He asserted that she had left the matrimonial home with him and even produced a panchayat report. He also claimed to have divorced her through Triple Talaq via a religious institution.
Key Observations by the Court
The Court found no credible or direct evidence proving that Bulbul Khatoon was continuously living in adultery. Witnesses failed to provide any date, time, or place of such alleged misconduct. The Court also noted that:
“No criminal complaint was ever filed by the husband against the alleged third party, despite the claims being made about a long-standing affair.”
Additionally, the Court found the so-called "divorce" through Triple Talaq as legally invalid. Citing the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, the Court ruled:
“Triple Talaq is declared void and illegal. The husband failed to provide any maintenance or dower (mehr), and thus, he cannot claim exemption from liability.”
Constitutional & Legal References
The Court reiterated key Supreme Court rulings, such as:
- Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017): Declared Triple Talaq unconstitutional.
- Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985): Upheld a divorced Muslim woman’s right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
- Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001): Maintenance obligation extends beyond the iddat period.
It also cited the recent judgment in Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana (2025), reaffirming that a divorced Muslim woman can seek maintenance under either Section 125 CrPC or the 1986 Act.
Findings on Maintenance Entitlement
The Court ruled in favour of Bulbul Khatoon, concluding that:
- There is no valid divorce under law.
- There is no sufficient evidence to prove continuous adultery.
- She was ousted due to dowry demands.
- Her husband, being able-bodied, has an obligation to support her and their child.
“Bulbul Khatoon is entitled to receive maintenance. The Family Court’s finding is perverse and not based on evidence,” the Court said.
The Patna High Court directed that Bulbul Khatoon should receive maintenance from her husband. It also clarified that the maintenance should be paid from the date of the original application, not merely from the date of the Family Court's order.
Case Title: Bulbul Khatoon & Another v. Md. Shamshad @ Md. Samsad & Another (Criminal Revision No. 509 of 2021) – Patna High Court