Adulterous Wife Cannot Claim Maintenance From Husband: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court held that when the wife is staying in adultery the question of maintenance would not arise. The petition was filed by the wife challenging an order passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, setting aside the granting of maintenance to the petitioner under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, along with compensation.
A Bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar held that, “When the petitioner is staying in adultery, the question of she claiming maintenance does not arise at all. 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 adulterous life.”
The petitioner sought various reliefs under the D.V. Act, including protection, residence, maintenance, and compensation. The Magistrate had initially granted a protection order and awarded maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month, rent allowance of Rs.1,000/-, and compensation of Rs.5,000/-. The husband appealed this decision, leading to the challenge by the wife in this petition.
Advocate Yadunandan . N appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Lokesha . P.C appeared for the Respondent.
The husband argued that the marriage was dissolved by a competent court due to adultery and cruelty. He claimed the wife had an affair with a neighbor, as evidenced by statements and complaints. The husband further contended that the divorce made any further claims for protection or maintenance irrelevant.
The Court found that the wife had indeed engaged in an adulterous relationship with neighbor, as supported by unchallenged police statements and complaints. The Court said, “The oral and documentary evidence produced clearly establish that the petitioner is not honest towards her husband and she has got extramarital affairs with neighbor Mahesh and all along, she asserted that she used to stay with him.”
The Court concluded that the Sessions Judge's decision to reject the wife's claim was justified. The Court added, “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.”
Therefore, the revision petition was dismissed.
Cause Title: Shanthakumari v. Thimmegowda, [2023:KHC:33789]
Click here to read/download the Order
