Rajasthan High Court Upholds Maintenance Order, Says Husband Levelled Adultery Allegation But At Same Time Sought Restitution Of Conjugal Rights

The Single Judge bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain observed:

“the evidence adduced by the present petitioner is not sufficient enough to draw a conclusion that respondent No.1 (wife) was living in adultery. The fact remains that the present petitioner despite allegation of adultery, had made efforts to reside with respondent-wife for which he filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, thus these contentions cannot be accepted.”

The petitioner-husband had approached the High Court under section 482 of CrPC challenging the order of Additional Sessions Judge whereby his revision preferred against Magistrate's order granting maintenance in favour of his wife and children was dismissed.

The petitioner contended that his wife was living in adultery with a worker in his establishment. He argued that if wife lives in adultery or without any sufficient reasons refuses to live with her husband or lives separately by mutual consent then, she is not entitled for grant of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. He further argued that his children are not entitled for grant of maintenance as he has insufficient means of earning.

The trial court had referred to letter exhibit purportedly written by the alleged worker to observe that mere a letter is not sufficient to castigate wife's character.

Agreeing, the High Court observed that even a perusal of the language used in letter, it is found that there is no substantial evidence to conclude that the wife ever remained in adultery with anyone.

“It is further evident from the record that XXX was a worker in the establishment run by present petitioner or his family thus, XXX is very well known to the petitioner and his family members that too, in the capacity of master and servant relationship. Thus, the evidence adduced by the present petitioner is not sufficient enough to draw a conclusion that respondent No.1 was living in adultery.”

The court further observed that petitioner is continuously residing at Mumbai, which is a metro city and maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to respondents is not a huge amount looking to the fact that petitioner was running a business.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition for being devoid of any merit.

Case Title: Sunil Kumar v. Smt. Bhawna & Ors

Coram: Justice Ashok Kumar Jain

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment