Introduction:

In a landmark judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court, presided over by Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, has held that a woman divorced on the grounds of proven adultery is disqualified from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This decision came in response to cross-revision petitions filed by a divorced couple challenging a Family Court order that directed the husband to pay ₹4,000 per month as maintenance to his ex-wife.

Arguments:

Husband’s Contentions:

The husband argued that the Family Court failed to consider that he was a contractual employee earning ₹17,131 per month and that his ex-wife was living in adultery, a fact legally established in a decree of divorce granted by the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur. He contended that under Section 125(4) CrPC, a wife is not entitled to maintenance if she is living in adultery, and this disqualification should persist even after divorce.

Wife’s Contentions:

The ex-wife challenged the maintenance amount, seeking an increase to ₹20,000 per month, citing lack of livelihood. She argued that “living in adultery” under Section 125(4) CrPC implies a continuous adulterous relationship, which was not established. She stated that she had been residing with her brother and sister-in-law since March 1, 2021, and there was no evidence of ongoing adultery.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Verma observed that the decree of divorce granted on September 8, 2023, on the grounds of adultery was sufficient proof that the ex-wife was living in adultery, thereby disqualifying her from claiming maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC. The court emphasized that the disqualification due to adultery does not cease to exist after divorce. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Family Court’s maintenance order, allowing the husband’s plea and dismissing the wife’s petition for increased maintenance.

Conclusion:

This judgment underscores the legal principle that a divorced wife proven to have committed adultery is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. It highlights the importance of marital conduct in determining eligibility for spousal support and reinforces the judiciary’s stance on upholding statutory provisions governing maintenance claims.