Chhattisgarh HC says

Representation only | Image source: Getty Images/Istockphoto

The High Court of Chhattisgarh ruled that a divorced wife who had an illegal relationship with a man other than her ex-husband was disqualified from maintaining.

In a recent judgment, the court heard two criminal amendments petitions filed by a computer operator from Raipur and his now divorced wife, both of whom challenged the 2024 Family Court order that directed the male applicant to pay Rs 4,000 a month to safeguard his now divorced wife.

The man challenged the order, asking the woman to be found “adult” with his younger brother, who was proven in the family court and prayed that his wife would not be able to ask for maintenance if she lived in adultery. He also believes that the Family Court did not consider his financial situation while announcing the ruling.

On the other hand, the woman’s petition calls for an increase in maintenance to Rs 20,000 per month.

The definition of adultery

Both applicants were in a solemn marriage on July 11, 2019, and the woman claimed that she suffered mental torture a few days after her marriage and that her character was questioned by her husband. She has not provided her with meals on time and has suffered from her in-laws’ torture. The petition states that in March 2021, she went to her father’s home, during that period, she lost her mother and has lived with her brothers since then.

During the debate, the woman’s lawyers believed that there was a subtle difference between the phrase “living in adultery” and “used to live in adultery” or “a physical relationship with someone who once had two or three times”.

The petitioner further pointed out that having an extramarital affair and adultery is a completely different parameter. The man believes that the divorce was based on adultery, and the court granted the divorce in 2023 under the Hindu Marriage Act.

After hearing the petitioner, Justice Arvind Kumar Verma put aside the Family Court Order. In a verdict made on May 9, Justice Verma pointed out that an ordinance obtained by the husband to prove his wife’s disguised life could not grant her permission to continue living in an illegal relationship and restore her to her upheld rights.