The Patna High Court ruled that isolated lapses by a wife do not disqualify her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC). The court emphasized the legal distinction between single acts of adultery and “living in adultery.”
Case Background
The case involved a Criminal Revision Petition challenging a Family Court order. The Family Court had directed the husband, Avadh Kishore Sah, to pay Rs. 3,000 per month to his wife, Soni Devi, and Rs. 2,000 per month to their minor daughter, Gudiya Kumari. The husband alleged that the wife had an illicit relationship and that the child was not biologically his.
Petitioner’s Stance
The petitioner accused his wife of having an adulterous relationship with her brother-in-law, Vishnudeo Sah. He argued this should disqualify her from receiving maintenance. He also denied paternity of the child.
Court’s Ruling
Justice Jitendra Kumar observed that acts of adultery and “living in adultery” are not the same. The court stated that isolated immoral acts do not amount to “living in adultery,” which requires continuous adulterous behavior. A few lapses followed by a return to normal life do not justify denial of maintenance.
On the issue of evidence, the court noted the husband failed to provide specific details of adultery, such as time, place, or identity of the alleged adulterer. The court found his accusations vague and unsupported.
Regarding the child’s paternity, the court relied on Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act. It held that a child born during a valid marriage is presumed legitimate unless proven otherwise. The husband never sought a legal declaration on paternity. Thus, the daughter was legally presumed his and entitled to maintenance.
Final Verdict
The court dismissed the petition. It upheld the Family Court’s decision, stating the maintenance amount was reasonable based on the wife’s and child’s needs and the husband’s income.
