New Delhi: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant permanent maintenance to a woman who was divorced by her husband on the ground of “adultery”.
The order was passed by a bench of Justices Ritu Bahri and Nidhi Gupta on September 27 on an appeal filed by a woman challenging the grant of divorce in 2008 by the Family Court at Ambala, Haryana.
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for maintenance of wife, children or parents. However, a sub-section states that “No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance under this section from her husband if she is living in adultery, or if, without sufficient cause, she continues to live with her husband.” denies, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.”
The High Court was hearing an appeal filed by the wife against a judgment passed by the Family Court, Ambala in September 2008, which sought divorce from her husband under Sections 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(ib). The petition was allowed. Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Section 13(1)(i) of the Act allows divorce on the ground that the husband or wife has had voluntary sexual intercourse with someone other than her husband or wife. Section 13(1)(ib) allows divorce if the spouse has deserted his or her spouse for a continuous period of not less than two years.
The couple married in May 1989 in Ambala city. However, according to the verdict, the husband alleged that the behavior of the wife was “extremely harsh and aggressive” from the very beginning of the marriage. The verdict also took note of the husband’s allegations that “she abused, humiliated and humiliated him and his family members”, and that his wife “developed intimacy” with her neighbor. However, the woman had denied the allegations of cruelty and adultery.
The family court granted divorce to the husband on the grounds of cruelty and adultery. The High Court upheld the order and refused to pay permanent maintenance to the woman.
Read also: Divorce is not the problem. to be in a bad marriage for the sake of the children
mediation had failed
When the woman filed an appeal challenging the grant of divorce in 2009, the High Court referred the matter to arbitration in May of the same year. The couple could not reconcile. In April 2018, the court said that the arbitration had failed in 2009. However, the appeal was not listed before the court due to “unintentional mistake of the employees”.
The High Court felt that the woman could not produce any evidence to reverse the findings of the family court.
“The learned counsel for the appellant is not able to lead any evidence which could reverse the finding of extramarital affairs of the appellant-wife and respondent No. 2. Taken together with the evidence given by the Inquiry Report (Ex.P1) [witnesses] It is consistently proved that the appellant-wife was living in adultery,” said the order of the two-judge bench.
The bench then referred to various judgments that the woman had relied on to show that the courts had paid maintenance to the wife despite allegations of adultery. However, she felt that these decisions would not help her case.
For example, the Bench said in one of the cases While the husband had leveled the charges of adultery against the wife, the Delhi High Court granted alimony holding that the husband was not able to prove the charges of adultery and the divorce was granted on the ground of cruelty and not on the ground of adultery. .
Pointing out the differences between such cases, the Punjab and Haryana High Court bench ruled that, “In view of the above observations, the appellant is not entitled to permanent maintenance. The appeal is dismissed.”
(Edited by VS Chandrasekhar)