'Living in adultery' refers to a continuous state of affairs where the wife is living in adultery. Sporadic acts of adultery may not constitute 'living in adultery'.

This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 12th August, 2013 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura whereby he allowed the revision petition of the husband and held that the wife (petitioner herein) was not entitled to maintenance. Aggrieved by this order the wife has filed the present petition.

2. The undisputed facts are that the parties were married to each other in the year 1993. One son and one daughter were born out of this wedlock.

3. According to the wife, for about two years the relationship between the husband and wife was cordial. Thereafter, the husband started misbehaving with the wife and started putting pressure upon her to bring a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from her father. According to the wife, her father with a view to maintaining the matrimonial harmony purchased some land at Rajnagar and constructed a house for her and her husband. According to the wife, in the year 2010 the petitioner-husband assaulted her in the presence of their children and left the said house and did not provide any maintenance to them. According to the wife, the husband is a teacher earning Rs.26,000/- per month. She claimed maintenance of Rs.15,000/- for herself and her two children.

4. This petition was contested by the husband. He denied the allegations made by the wife. His version is that the house was constructed by him after taking a loan from the Bank. It is further alleged that after the daughter of the parties passed her Madhyamik examination, she was admitted in Belonia Vidhyapith School. With a view to help the prosecution of studies by the daughter the wife started residing along with the daughter as a tenant in the house of one Mr. Dilip Dey, Advocate. The petitioner-husband continued to reside at Rajnagar with his son but visited Belonia off and on.

According to the husband, one Pintu Das who was working as a tutor developed intimate relationship with the wife. According to the husband, his son passed Class-V and therefore, he along with the son also came to live in the house at Belonia in January, 2011. However, the wife left the rented house leaving the petitioner-husband and both the children at Belonia with the husband. She started residing alone at Rajnagar.

5. According to the husband, he was paying maintenance to the wife but one day in July, 2011 when he went to his house at Rajnagar he found his wife and Pintu Das in a compromising position. His wife apologized for this act. The petitioner informed the Pradhan. In the meantime, the owner of the house, which was taken by them on rent, asked them to vacate the house. So, the husband arranged another house near Vidyapith School. The husband stated that he was ready to pay maintenance for the children but not to his wife since she was living in adultery. The wife examined three witnesses including herself and her daughter. The husband examined five witnesses including himself.

6. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the husband had placed on record certain material to show that the wife was living in adultery. He held that three occasions of adultery have been proved on record; firstly, when the petitioner himself found the wife and Pintu Das in a compromising position; secondly, when Ms. Shilpi Das OPW.3 found the wife half naked in a compromising position with Pintu Das and thirdly, that Pintu Das used to visit the rented room at Belonia on many occasions and stayed there along with the wife. The trial Court relying upon the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in Md. Abdul Sattar Vs. State of Assam and Ors., (2009) 2 GLR 628 came to the conclusion that though the three acts of adultery may have been proved, it cannot be said that the wife was living in adultery. He held that ‘living in adultery is one thing and committing act of adultery is another thing. Therefore, he directed the husband to pay maintenance of Rs.2,500/- to the petitioner and his minor son. No maintenance was granted