SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(P&H) 1220

SUMEET GOEL
Mohinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Baljinder Kaur – Respondent


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

Judgement Key Points

Key Points from the Provided Legal Document:

  1. 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 (!) (!) .

  2. 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 (!) (!) .

  3. 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 (!) (!) .

  4. 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 (!) (!) (!) .

  5. 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 (!) (!) (!) .

  6. 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 (!) .

  7. 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 (!) .

  8. 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 (!) (!) .

  9. 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 (!) (!) .

  10. 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 (!) (!) (!) .

  11. 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 (!) (!) .

  12. 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 r

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
            whatsapp-icon Back to top