Wife Living In Adultery Not Entitled To Maintenance From Husband Under Domestic Violence Act: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that a wife cannot claim maintenance from her husband under section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, when she is in an adulterous relationship with another person.

A single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar rejected the revision petition filed by the wife seeking to set aside the order of the Sessions court which in turn had set aside the order of maintenance granted in favour of the wife by the Magistrate court on her making an application.

The bench said,

“The oral and documentary evidence produced clearly establishes that the petitioner is not honest towards her husband and she has got extramarital affairs with the neighbour and all along, she asserted that she used to stay with him. When the petitioner is staying in adultery, the question of she claiming maintenance does not arise at all.”

The magistrate court had on the application of the wife made under Section 12 of the Act granted a protection order under Section 18 of the Act and awarded maintenance of Rs.1,500 to her and Rs.1,000 towards rent allowance and Rs.5,000 as compensation.

The husband challenged the order before the sessions court which set aside the impugned order passed by the Magistrate.

The wife contended that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and it is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife. It was asserted that since he is having an illicit relationship with his relative, domestic violence is required to be inferred.

The husband opposed the plea stating the petitioner had eloped with a neighbour and all along, she refused to stay with him and showed her interest to stay with her paramour. Thus, he said though she is a legally wedded wife, looking at her conduct and having illicit relationship, she is not entitled for any maintenance.

The bench went through the evidence of the witnesses examined by the husband which supported his contention that the wife had eloped and was staying with the neighbour. It then observed,

“The contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is a legally wedded wife and entitled for maintenance cannot be accepted in view of the conduct of the petitioner, who is not honest and is leading an adulterous life.”

Rejecting the allegation made by the wife that the husband is having an illicit relationship with the daughter of his sister-in-law, the court said, “Since the petitioner is claiming maintenance, she must prove that she is honest and when she herself is not honest, she cannot pin-point her fingers towards her husband.”

Following which it observed, “The learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate any of these aspects and in a mechanical way, awarded the maintenance and compensation, which is a perverse order. The learned Sessions judge has re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner in view of the fact that she was leading an adulterous life.”

Appearance: Advocate Yadunandan N for Advocate Gururaj R for Petitioner.

Advocate Lokesha P C for Respondent.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 386

Case Title: ABC & XYZ

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 56 OF 2016

Click Here To Read/Download Order