Important Point--Single act of infidelity cannot be termed as living in adultery.

1. Nani Palkhiwala, in his Book, “We, the Nation.. The Lost Decades” in the context of attack on judiciary by the litigants and others had said that “Character Assassination is a National Sport of India.... Making allegations to scandalize the person is the easiest task. To attack and allege against the character of any person without any semblance of proof and without any matching seriousness is a widespread malaise. When more and more allegations are made in matrimonial cases of spouse living in adultery, issue assumes seriousness. What does it amount to ‘living in adultery’ and what nature of proof needs to be adduced when this is alleged by the spouse to deny maintenance to the wife under the exception carved out under Section 125 of the Code?

2. Both these Revision Applications have arisen from the common order dated 22.04.2014 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Family Court, Rajkot granting the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the wife and Rs.5,000/- to the child. The wife is aggrieved by the amount of Rs.5,000/-, as according to her, she ought to have been granted Rs.15,000/- and Rs.10,000/- should have been ordered for child, as monthly maintenance. She has preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 537 of 2014 for enhancement of the maintenance. Whereas being aggrieved by the order impugned, the husband has preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 728 of 2014 seeking quashment of the said order dated 22.04.2014. The wife and the Son are to be addressed as applicants Nos. 1 and 2 respectively and the husband, who is otherwise the petitioner of Criminal Revision Application No. 728 of 2014, is to be referred as respondent No. 2 in this order.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant No.1 and respondent No. 2 were married in the year 1997 as per the Hindu rites and customs. The applicant No. 2 was borne out of their wedlock. It is submitted that the matrimonial dispute started between the parties when the applicant No.1 left her matrimonial home on 27.02.2008. Thereafter, a family suit came to be filed by the respondent No. 2 for dissolution of marriage being Family Suit No. 614 of 2010 and the applicant No.1 filed an application being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 554 of 2010 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance (‘the Code’ for short) in the Family Court at Rajkot wherein the Court has granted interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.5,000/- to applicant No.1 and Rs.10,000/- to the applicant No. 2 and eventually, after availing an opportunity of hearing to both the parties of adducing the oral as well as documentary evidence, such amount was confirmed.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Krunal Shahi appearing for the applicants has urged that the husband is working with the G.E.B. as Plant Operator and as per the salary slip, his salary is Rs.35,000/- per month. However, such an amount must have enhanced by now considering the month in which the maintenance is awarded. And, again, if the unit method is adopted, then also, the amount of Rs.10,000/- to the wife and Rs.5,000/- to the child is on lesser side. He urged that the education of applicant No. 2 is getting costlier every day and value of money is diminishing.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli appearing for the respondent No. 2 has urged that the wife is not entitled to any amount of maintenance as the allegation of the husband is that she is living in adultery. With a view to ensure that the dispute does not affect the life of the applicant No. 2, evidence was not adduced before the trial Court in this regard. He has not examined the witnesses nor has he produced the documents through any witness to substantiate this charge. He of course pleaded that the wife was living in adultery and he himself had adduced the documents before the Court concerned. According to him, the Court ought to have believed the documentary evidences laid before it and ought not to have granted the maintenance inasmuch as wife