Summary
In a landmark decision, the Chhattisgarh High Court set aside a Family Court’s order granting maintenance to a woman who was earlier divorced on the ground of adultery. The Court upheld that a wife proven to be “living in adultery” is legally disqualified from claiming maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC.
Facts of the Case
- The husband and wife separated after serious marital discord.
- The husband alleged that the wife had an illicit relationship with his younger brother, which was later proved in divorce proceedings.
- The Family Court granted him a divorce on 09.2023 on the ground of adultery.
- Despite this, the Family Court awarded the wife ₹4,000/month as maintenance in an order dated 11.2024.
- The husband challenged this order, while the wife sought enhancement of maintenance to ₹20,000/month, citing the husband’s alleged high income from rent, agriculture, and employment.
Legal Provisions Involved
- Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): Provides maintenance to wives, children, and parents.
- Section 125(4) CrPC: States that a wife is not entitled to maintenance if she is “living in adultery”.
ARGUMENTS
Petitioner (Husband):
- The wife was granted divorce on proven grounds of adultery with his younger brother.
- She left the matrimonial home voluntarily and without cause.
- He earns ₹17,131 as a temporary Data Entry Operator and has limited income.
- The wife’s adulterous conduct disqualifies her from claiming maintenance under Section 125(4).
Respondent (Wife):
- Claimed husband earns significantly more from other sources like rent and agriculture.
- Argued that “living in adultery” requires ongoing and present adulterous conduct, not past behavior.
- Cited judgments stating that past adultery or one-off extramarital incidents don’t bar maintenance.
- Maintained that she now resides with her brother and sister-in-law, not in an adulterous setup.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
- Reiterated that “living in adultery” includes consistent or ongoing sexual relationships outside marriage.
- The decree of divorce passed earlier specifically on the ground of adultery is conclusive proof of the wife’s conduct.
- Held that once adultery is judicially established and remains unchallenged, the wife’s right to maintenance stands nullified under Section 125(4).
- Distinguished this case from others cited by the wife where divorce was not granted or adultery wasn’t proven conclusively.
- Affirmed that a divorced woman proven to have lived in adultery remains disqualified from maintenance, even post-divorce.
CONCLUSION of the Judgment:
- The High Court quashed the Family Court’s order granting ₹4,000 maintenance.
- Husband’s revision (CRR No. 1322/2024) was allowed.
- Wife’s revision (CRR No. 58/2025) seeking enhancement was dismissed.
- The wife, having been proven to be living in adultery, cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
Comments from the author of this website
As a men’s rights activist, I see this judgment as a long-overdue recognition of the emotional and legal struggles many men face in our system. For years, I’ve seen countless husbands dragged through maintenance proceedings—even when it was clear their wives had betrayed them or left the marriage on their own terms. This case is a prime example of how the system can finally work fairly for men.
The Family Court’s earlier decision to award maintenance to a woman already proven to be living in adultery was not just unfair—it was a direct blow to the integrity of the law. Section 125(4) of the CrPC exists to ensure that those who violate the sanctity of marriage do not get rewarded for it. The High Court, thankfully, upheld this principle. It reaffirmed that maintenance is not a default entitlement—it comes with conditions, including moral and legal accountability.
This ruling gives hope to countless men who have been silenced or shamed for standing up against infidelity. It sends a clear message: men are not mere ATMs, and their rights, too, matter. When a husband proves that his wife was unfaithful, he should not be further punished by being forced to support her financially.
In our fight for legal equality, this judgment is a significant step forward. It reminds us that the law must be grounded in truth, not blind sympathy—and that men, too, deserve justice.
Final Thoughts
This judgment is more than a legal win—it’s a strong reminder that maintenance is not an automatic right, especially when a spouse is proven to have broken the sanctity of marriage.
As a men’s rights activist, I see this as a much-needed step toward restoring fairness in family law. It rightly emphasizes that truth and accountability matter, and that men should not be financially punished for their partner’s misconduct.
Let this serve as a precedent—justice must be based on facts, not bias.
Read Complete Judgement Here