P&H HC: Wife Living in Adultery not Entitled to Permanent Alimony under Hindu Marriage Act

Sakina Tashrifwala

Published on: November 3, 2022 at 19:51 IST

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently rejected lifelong alimony to a wife who was living in adultery after her divorce was granted on the basis of such adultery.

The appellant-wife in the case filed an appeal contesting the judgement of the Family Court, Ambala, by which the Family Court granted the respondent-divorce husband’s petition under Sections 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The facts that led to the petition were that the appellant and respondent had been lawfully married wife and husband since 1989 under the Hindu Marriage Act.

The respondent-husband filed a divorce petition with the Family Court in Ambala, alleging that his wife’s behaviour was extremely rude and aggressive from the start of their marriage, and that she used to abuse, insult, and humiliate him and his family members, making constant taunts about the respondent’s financial situation, and also calling him ‘Namard’ – all of which events made him mentally ill.

Furthermore, the respondent stated in front of the Trial Court that his wife had an intimate contact with another man (the second respondent), which caused him to leave his home in 2006.

It was further proven by the husband through numerous witnesses that his wife and the second respondent used to converse on their mobile phones and that the second respondent used to visit his wife when the husband was abroad.

As a result, the respondent husband sought divorce on the basis of ‘cruelty’ and ‘adultery.’

Based on the respondent-allegations, i.e., the husband’s, the Trial Court gave a divorce decree under Sections 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, confirming both cruelty and adultery as stated by the husband.

In light of that decision, the appellant-wife filed a permanent alimony claim with the High Court.

The division bench of Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Nidhi Gupta ruled that the appellant-wife does not have the right to seek perpetual alimony from the respondent-husband.

The Court distinguished the facts of the present case from the facts of its decisions in Anil Kumar Sharma vs. Asha Sharma, 2014 (36) R.C.R. (Civil) 812 and Pradeep Kumar Sharma vs. Deepika Sharma, Crl. Rev. P. No. 417 of 2021, noting that in those cases, permanent alimony claims were made after divorce was granted on the basis of cruelty rather than adultery, and thus the wife was entitled to alimony.

Furthermore, the Court distinguished the facts in Valsarajan vs. Saraswathy, 2003(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 665, a Kerala High Court decision relied on by the appellant-wife, from the present facts, noting that in Valsarajan, the wife was living with another man after divorce, as opposed to the present case, where the wife was living in adultery before the Trial Court issued a divorce decree.

The Court denied the petition, ruling that the petitioner was not entitled to perpetual alimony because the wife was accountable not only for ‘cruelty,’ but also for ‘adultery.’

Related Post