Wife’s Love & Affection To Someone Else Without Physical Relations Does Not Constitute ‘Adultery': Madhya Pradesh HC

The case involved a revision petition filed by a husband challenging a family court’s order requiring him to pay ₹4,000 in interim maintenance to his wife. The husband argued that since his wife was in love with someone else, she was not entitled to any maintenance.

A Bench of Justice GS Ahluwalia stated that for an act to be considered adultery, it must involve sexual intercourse. It said, “Adultery necessary means sexual intercourse. Even if a wife is having a love and affection towards somebody else without any physical relations, then that by itself cannot be sufficient to hold that the wife is living in adultery,”

Advocate Vitthal Rao Jumre appeared for the Applicant.

The High Court rejected his claim, clarifying that under Section 144(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), maintenance can only be denied if it is proven that the wife is living in adultery, which necessitates sexual relations. Therefore, the Court held that emotional attachment, without physical intimacy, does not meet the criteria for adultery.

The husband had also presented his financial situation as a Ward Boy earning ₹8,000 per month, asserting that the ₹4,000 interim maintenance was too high, particularly since his wife was already receiving ₹4,000 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. However, the Court said, “In the said certificate, the place of issuance and date of issuance are not mentioned. Therefore, unless and until that salary certificate is duly proved by the authorities who has issued the same, it is difficult for this Court to rely on the said certificate at this stage.”

The Court also emphasized that the husband had not contested his ability to work and earn, stating that his relatively low income was not a valid reason to deny maintenance. The Court noted, “Meager income of the husband cannot be a criteria to deny maintenance. If the applicant has married a girl knowing fully well that he is not competent to even fulfil his own daily needs then for that he himself is responsible but if he is an able bodied person then he has to earn something to maintain his wife or to pay the maintenance amount,”

Furthermore, the Court observed that the husband had not provided any evidence to substantiate his claim that the wife was running a beauty parlour. It added, “The applicant has not filed any document to show that the wife of the applicant is having any property where she can run a beauty parlour. The applicant has not filed any document to show that how much money she is earning from that beauty parlour. The matter is yet to be decided by leading evidence. Mere bald submission that wife is running a beauty parlour is not sufficient to deny interim maintenance to her, specifically when no document has been filed to show that either the wife of the applicant is running a beauty parlour in a shop owned by her or in a shop taken by her on a rent,”

The husband also claimed that he had been dispossessed of family properties. However, the Court dismissed this argument, suggesting that the notice of dispossession appeared to be a tactic possibly influenced by legal advice, as the husband was still living with his father.

In terms of the maintenance amount, the Court highlighted that a wife is entitled to maintenance under all applicable laws. Since the family court had already considered the ₹4,000 maintenance awarded under the Hindu Marriage Act, the High Court ruled that the trial court had not committed any significant error in granting the same amount under Section 125 of the CrPC.

As a result, the High Court dismissed the husband’s revision petition, affirming the family court’s order.

Cause Title: X v. Y, [2025:MPHC-JBP:2143]

Click here to read/download Order