Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(P&H) 1220

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
SUMEET GOEL, J.
Mohinder Singh - Appellant
Versus
Baljinder Kaur - Respondent
CRR (F) 71 of 2024
Decided On : 27-09-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appearing Parties :Mr. Pardhuman Garg Advocate, Mr. Simranjeet Singh Sarwara Advocate, Ms. Khushika Setia Advocate

A husband can contest a wife's claim for interim maintenance on grounds of adultery, but must provide sufficient evidence to support this claim.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125(4) - Interim maintenance - The Family Court directed the husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- - The husband contended that the wife was living in adultery, thus not entitled to maintenance - The court held that the husband can raise the plea of adultery, but must provide sufficient proof - The evidence presented by the husband, including photographs, indicated the wife was in a relationship with another person - The court found the wife not entitled to interim maintenance based on the evidence - The impugned order was set aside. (Paras 1-17)

(B) Maintenance - Adultery - The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the husband to establish the claim of adultery, which can be proven through circumstantial evidence. (Paras 12-14)

Facts of the case:
The husband challenged the Family Court's order granting interim maintenance to the wife, arguing she was living in adultery, supported by photographs and her own statements.

Findings of Court:
The court found the evidence sufficient to conclude that the wife was living in a relationship with another person, thus denying her maintenance.

Issues: The main issue was whether the husband could deny maintenance on the grounds of the wife's alleged adultery and the nature of proof required.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the husband is entitled to raise the plea of adultery in maintenance proceedings, but must substantiate it with adequate evidence.

Result: Revision petition allowed; impugned order set aside.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points from the Provided Legal Document:

A husband can contest a wife's claim for interim maintenance on the grounds of adultery, but must provide sufficient evidence to substantiate this claim (!) (!) .
The evidence required to prove adultery can include circumstantial evidence such as photographs, social media activity, and other social media footprints, which the court may consider even at the interim stage (!) (!) .
The burden of proof lies on the party alleging adultery; direct evidence is often difficult to obtain, and reliance on circumstantial evidence is permissible if it leads to a preponderance of possibilities (!) (!) .
Proceedings under sections related to maintenance are summary in nature and do not constitute a final determination of the rights and obligations of the parties. The court's decision at this stage is tentative and subject to final adjudication in a civil court (!) (!) (!) .
The statutory provisions explicitly permit a husband to raise the plea of adultery to oppose interim maintenance and litigation expenses, with the court considering such evidence in its discretion (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that the exercise of judicial discretion in such cases should be reasoned, transparent, and aligned with principles of natural justice, good conscience, and equity. The reasons for accepting or rejecting evidence, including social media material, must be clearly articulated (!) .
Evidence such as photographs, social media posts, or social media profiles can be considered relevant and admissible in the context of these proceedings, even if they are subject to manipulation, provided the court finds them credible and relevant (!) .
In the specific case discussed, photographs indicating a relationship akin to marriage between the wife and another individual were deemed sufficient to deny interim maintenance, leading to the setting aside of the earlier order (!) (!) .
The court reiterates that when a plea of adultery is raised, it must be supported by plausible evidence, and the nature of such evidence is often circumstantial given the clandestine nature of adulterous acts (!) (!) .
The proceedings aim to balance the social and moral considerations surrounding marriage, emphasizing that adultery breaches the sanctity of the marital relationship and may impact the entitlement to maintenance (!) (!) (!) .
The court's role includes evaluating all relevant evidence, including social media and photographs, with a view to ensuring justice, and it must do so by exercising judicial discretion with clear reasoning (!) (!) .
The decision in the case was to dismiss the wife's claim for interim maintenance and litigation expenses based on the evidence of her alleged adulterous relationship, as demonstrated through photographs and her own statements (!) .

These key points outline the legal principles, evidentiary considerations, and procedural aspects relevant to raising and contesting claims of adultery in maintenance proceedings, particularly at the interim stage.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Sumeet Goel, J.:- The instant revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 07.08.2023 passed by the Principle Judge, Family Court, (Camp Court), Rajpura (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘impugned order’) wherein, while deciding an application for interim maintenance, the Family Court has directed the petitioner (herein)-husband to pay interim maintenance to the respondent (herein)-wife to the tune of Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of the filing of the application before the said Court &onetime litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband, while assailing the impugned order, has iterated that the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C., 1973, as it is clear from the factual matrix of the matter that the wife was living in adultery &hence she was not entitled to any interim maintenance. To buttress his argument, learned counsel has relied upon the photographs (copies whereof have been appended as Annexure P-1 with the petition) which, as per the learned counsel, clearly show that the respondent (herein) is either married or living in some kind of connubial relationship with one XXXX. To solidify this argument, the learned counsel has further referred to a copy of the memo of parties of a complaint case filed by the respondent (herein) - wife wherein she herself has stated that she is living with the said XXXX. It has been further submitted that, assuming arguendo, the husband is liable to pay interim maintenance to wife then the quantum of interim maintenance assessed is on the higher side keeping in view the fact that the petitioner (herein) is earning only Rs.35-40,000/- per month. Thus, setting-aside of the impugned order has been sought for.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the plea of adultery raised on behalf of the petitioner (herein) cannot be looked into at the stage of adjudication of the interim maintenance which is akin to a protem arrangement. It has been further submitted that, even if such a plea is raisable at this stage, at the instance of the husband, there is no cogent material available on record to substantiate the case of the husband that the wife is living in adultery. Learned counsel has further argued that, keeping in view the admitted stand of the petitioner (herein)-husband in his affidavit furnished before the Family Court stating that his monthly income is Rs.35-40,000/- per month, the interim maintenance awarded at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of application cannot be said to be on the higher side. Thus, dismissal of the instant petition has been sought for.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused Prime Issue

5. The prime issue that arises for consideration in the instant revision petition is as to whether the impugned order dated 07.08.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rajpura deserves to be set- aside.

The pivotal legal issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the husband (non-applicant before the Family Court) is permitted to raise the plea that the wife is not entitled to interim maintenance and expense of proceedings (commonly referred to as ‘litigation expenses’), on the ground that she is living in adultery, in terms of the statutory provision contained in Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C., 1973/Section 144(4) of BNSS, 2023. Further seminal issue is that if such a plea is permitted to be raised, then what is the degree/nature of proof required thereon.

6. Relevant Statutory provisions

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C., 1898’)

Section 488 of Cr.P.C. 1898 reads as under:-

(2)

(3) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

(4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or if they ar