Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
Ravi Kiran Arigela – Appellant
Versus
D. Asha – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER
1. This revision petition has been filed by the applicant u/S 19(4) Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred as Act 1984) r/w S. 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated 11.11.2022 passed by II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore, M.P. in Miscellaneous criminal case No.578/2016, whereby the learned trial Court has partly allowed an application u/S 125 of Cr.P.C. and awarded Rs.10,000/- per month maintenance to the respondent/wife from the petitioner/husband.
2. It is an admitted fact that the marriage of the petitioner/husband is solemnized with the respondent/wife as per Hindu ritual and rites on 22.3.2015. It is also admitted that in the case of HMOP No.464/2016, the Additional Family Court, Coimbatore allowed a petition u/S 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, filed by the husband and granted ex-parte decree of divorce between the parties on 14.12.2016, on the ground of cruelty by wife.
3. Facts giving rise to this case are that the respondent/wife during pendency of divorce petition at Family Court, Coimbatore, had filed an application for maintenance u/S
A wife living in adultery is not entitled to maintenance if proven by continuous evidence; mere isolated incidents are insufficient.
Proper consideration of the issue of adultery is essential in determining a wife's entitlement to maintenance under section 125(4) of Cr.P.C.
The burden of proof for alleging a spouse is living in adultery lies with the husband, who must demonstrate continuous conduct to deny maintenance under Section 125.
A husband can contest a wife's claim for interim maintenance on grounds of adultery, but must provide sufficient evidence to support this claim.
Wife and legitimate child are entitled to maintenance unless proven living in adultery, with allegations requiring strong substantiation.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article