ORDER

1. This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner under section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act r/w section 397 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.12.2018, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhar M.P., in MJCR No. 62/2017, whereby the learned Principal Judge has allowed the application filed on behalf of the respondents and awarded Rs. 3000/- per month as maintenance in favour respondent No.1 and Rs. 3000/- per month in favour of respondent No.2/daughter from the date of application. Hence, the present petition before this Court for reduction of the maintenance amount.

2. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the the learned trial Court has awarded maintenance @ Rs.6000/- per month on higher side. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that divorce decree has been passed by learned family Court on the ground of adultery. Such finding is relevant for deciding the issue of adultery in the present case. it is further submitted that the learned family Court has clearly stated that the respondent of this case surviving her life in adultery. Virtually, on this point, there are overwhelming evidence in this case too.

3. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance over the judgment passed by Madras High Court in the case of M.Chinna Karuppasamy v. Kanimozhi 2015-4-L.W.553 wherein, the Court has observed that "A divorced wife, who lives in adultery, is disqualified from claiming maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C."

4. Counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance over the judgment of Karnataka High Court passed in the case of Shanthakumari v. Thimmegowda [2023 SCC ONLine Kar 66] wherein the Court has observed that "the oral and documentary evidence produced clearly establish that the petitioner is not honest towards husband and she has got extramarital af airs with neighbor Mahesh and all along, she asserted that she used to stay with him. When the petitioner is staying in adultery, the question of she claiming maintenance does not arise at all. the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is a legally wedded wife and entitled for maintenance cannot be accepted in view of the conduct of petitioner, who is not honest and is leading adulterous life."

5. Per contra, counsel for the respondent/wife admitted that although the respondent has now married, but it cannot be said that she was in adultery and only on the basis of surmises and conjunctures, such type of allegations cannot be leveled regarding involvement of the respondent/wife in adultery. Anyway, even one chance of adultery cannot eschew her from getting maintenance from her husband. Hence, the learned trial Court has rightly considered the evidence available on record and granted maintenance in favour of the respondents. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. In support of her contention counsel for the respondent place reliance over the judgment of Delhi High Court passed in the case of Sh. Pradeep Kumar Sharma v. Smt. Deepika Sharma [2022 Live Law (DEl) 324], wherein the Court observed that "only continuous and repeated acts of adultery or cohabitation in adultery would attract the rigours of the provisions under section 125(4) of Cr.P.C."

7. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through he record.

8. Certainly, non-application has filed a judgment of ASJ, Shujalpur who has decreed the case of divorce between the parties on the basis of adultery. Certainly, that finding is relevant to this case as per the provisions of section 41 of Evidence Act. In this regard, the law laid down by Madras High Court in M.Chinna Karuppasamy (supra), the Court observed as under :--

"22. In view of section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if once the decree for divorce is granted on the ground of adultery, such finding is relevant for deciding the issue of adultery in the present case. This Court cannot sit in an appeal