Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 1286
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Vikas Mahajan, JJ.
Sripal – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Laxmi – Respondent
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 141 of 2022, CM APPL. 40321 of 2022 & CM APPL. 17374 of 2023
Decided On : 25-04-2023
Mr. Vishal Chaudhary, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Ms. Shikha Arora, proxy Advocate, for the Respondent.
Mere cohabitation and photographs with another person are not sufficient to prove an illicit relationship for the purpose of disentitling the spouse from maintenance.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Illicit Relationship - The court found that the mere fact that the respondent was living in the same house as another person did not substantiate the claim of an illicit relationship. The court also noted that the appellant's defence had been struck off due to non-payment of maintenance, and therefore, the appellant's contention that the respondent was disentitled to maintenance was not accepted. The court upheld the maintenance award of Rs.4,000 per month for the respondent.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the order granting maintenance to the respondent under Section 125 Cr.PC, claiming that the respondent was disentitled to maintenance due to an alleged illicit relationship.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's contention and upholding the maintenance award of Rs.4,000 per month for the respondent.
Issues: Disentitlement to maintenance based on alleged illicit relationship, amount of maintenance awarded.
Ratio Decidendi: Mere cohabitation with another person and photographs showing them together were not sufficient to prove an illicit relationship. The appellant's defence being struck off due to non-payment of maintenance also affected the appellant's contention.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the maintenance award of Rs.4,000 per month for the respondent was upheld.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--Appellant impugns order dated 06.04.2018, whereby the petition filed by the respondent under Section 125 Cr.PC. has been allowed and maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month w.e.f. the date of filing of the petition i.e. 26.10.2010 has been awarded in favor of the respondent-wife.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent is disentitled to grant of maintenance on the ground that she is having an illicit relationship with a person.
3. To buttress his argument, learned counsel submits that it is an admitted position that respondent is living with the said person. He relies on some photographs that have been placed on record to substantiate his arguments.
4. We are unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellant for the reason that the statement that respondent is living with somebody is only alleged to be substantiated by the contention that she is living in the same house with that individual.
5. The stand of the respondent is that the said person is the nephew of the respondent and since she was thrown out of the house by the appellant she had to take shelter in the house of the said individual. Further, the photographs merely show four or five persons standing in the photographs along with children. Merely because a photograph is clicked with an individual does not in any manner substantiate the contention that the respondent is having an affair with that individual.
6. It is also an admitted position that the defence of the appellant has been struck off on account of non-payment of the maintenance and as such said defence is also not available to the appellant.
7. The concerned court has fixed only an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance for the respondent. There is no contention to impugn the same on merits. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order fixing maintenance at Rs.4,000/- per month or any ground to accept the contention of the appellant that respondent is disentitled for grant of maintenance.
8. In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeal, the appeal is consequently, dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
