New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has held that acts of cruelty and alienating adultery by a wife do not deprive her of maintenance from her husband.
Justice Chandradhari Singh, who was dealing with a challenge in a lower court that directed the husband to pay monthly maintenance to the wife, observed that only continuous and repeated acts of adultery were committed by the wife. shall attract a legal exception to the grant of payment to Allowance by husband.
Read also | The salary of Air India employees will be restored in a phased manner. see details here
The trial court, in its order passed under Section 125 CrPC, had directed that the husband should pay Rs 15,000 per month to the wife from August 2020.
Challenging the order of the trial court, the husband argued that the direction for payment of maintenance cannot be sustained by the wife on several grounds including cruelty, adultery and abandonment.
The High Court rejected the grounds raised by the husband and held that although the maintenance law aims to ensure that the wife, children and parents of a capable and capable person do not become destitute, “recent practice”. was “abused”. Due process of law and avoidance of liability which is imposed on the husband on disputes which have no basis. The High Court observed that “brutality and harassment are not grounds for non-payment of maintenance” and noted that even in cases where divorce is granted on the ground of cruelty, the courts The wife has been given alimony.
The court, in its recent order, said, “Even in cases where divorce is granted on the ground of cruelty, the courts have granted permanent maintenance to the wife and the right of the wife to claim maintenance has been quashed by the courts.” There’s no stopping.”
“The law emanating from the various precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts establishes the position of payment of maintenance, holding that the ground of cruelty does not deprive the wife of her right to maintenance,” Said it.
Regarding the grounds of adultery, the court held that the husband did not even establish a prima facie case against the wife and the law required that the wife had to continue in adultery to prevent her from receiving maintenance under section 125 of CrPC. .
“The husband must establish with definite evidence that the wife has been living in adultery and that one or occasional acts of adultery committed in isolation shall not be deemed to be a ‘living in adultery’.”
“The law states that in order to draw up a provision under section 125(4) of CrPC, the husband must establish with definite evidence that the wife has been living in adultery, and the acts of adultery committed in isolation on one or the other occasion,” the court said. , does not amount to ‘living in adultery’.
The grounds of abandonment were also rejected by the court and the husband’s challenge to the order of the lower court was dismissed.