Patna High Court: Isolated Moral Lapses Not Enough to Deny Maintenance to Wife Under CrPC Section 125.

Patna High Court:

that protects the rights of estranged wives seeking maintenance, the Patna High Court recently clarified that isolated moral failings or past indiscretions of a woman do not automatically disqualify her from receiving maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Justice Jitendra Kumar, who presided over the matter, drew a crucial distinction between isolated acts of adultery and “living in adultery.” He emphasized that "adultery" implies a continuous, ongoing relationship and not just one or two moments of moral weakness.

"Any physical relationship of a lady with any person prior to her marriage does not come within the definition of ‘adultery’ because adultery is an offence against one’s spouse," the judge observed.
"However, ‘living in adultery’ denotes a continuous course of conduct and not isolated acts of immorality."

The observation was made during a criminal revision petition filed by a husband who was directed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhagalpur, to pay Rs. 3,000 per month to his estranged wife and Rs. 2,000 per month to their minor daughter. The husband challenged the order, claiming that his wife was engaged in an illicit relationship and that the child was not his biological daughter.

However, the Court found no merit in these allegations. It noted that the petitioner had made vague and unsubstantiated claims about his wife’s alleged affair with her brother-in-law, without providing any specific details such as time, place, or even substantial evidence of the relationship.

"One or two lapses from virtues may be acts of adultery, but would not be sufficient to show that the woman was ‘living in adultery’. A few moral lapses and a return to normal life cannot be said to be ‘living in adultery’," Justice Kumar stated.

On the issue of the child’s paternity, the Court relied on Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, which provides that a child born during the subsistence of a valid marriage is presumed to be the legitimate offspring of the husband unless he can prove there was no access during the time of conception.

The judge concluded that the husband had failed to discharge this burden, and therefore, the child was to be treated as legitimate.

"In the case on hand," the Court held, "there is no doubt about the entitlement of Soni Devi to receive maintenance from her husband."