The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case Amit Kumar Yadav v. Suman Devi and others observed and stated that unless it is found that at the relevant point of time, the wife was actually living in adultery, she is not disentitled to claim maintenance. It was further opined by the court that the material on record must indicate that the wife was living in adultery shortly before or after the petition of maintenance has been instituted.
The bench comprising of Justice Vivek Puri observed and has also held that a solitary act of adultery or an isolated lapse of wife, will not disentitle the wife to claim the maintenance.
Background of the Case:
A plea has been moved by the wife under Section 125 of the Code in July 2017 seeking maintenance for herself and for three minor children from her husband (petitioner herein). The petition was resisted by the Husband on the score that his wife was having adulterous relationship and she had admitted this aspect in terms of a writing executed on May 19, 2005. After his right to adduce was evidence was closed in July 2019, an application was moved by him for additional evidence for examining a handwriting expert to prove the aforesaid writing of the wife (petitioner therein).
The wife resisted the application arguing that the said document was well within the knowledge of the husband and despite being given sufficient opportunity to produce evidence, he deliberately and intentionally moved the present application at a belated stage in the case to fill up the lacuna. The court dismissed the application. Aggrieved with the same, the husband moved the instant plea, challenging the same.
Observations Made By High Court:
It was opined by the Court that although a discretion is vested in the trial Court to act as the exigencies of justice and circumstances of the case may require to permit a party to lead additional evidence, therefore, the court added that it has also to be borne in mind that such power cannot be exercised to permit any of the parties in its case to fill up lacuna.
Further, it was noted by the court that in the instant case, the petitioner-husband was well within the knowledge of the alleged writing during the filing of the maintenance plea by the wife and he had even taken an objection to the main petition to dispute the claim of the respondents for maintenance, however, there was no justified reason for him to now initiate the exercise of proving the writing by examining a handwriting expert after displaying inaction for a period of two years and when the case was already pending in the trial Court for the evidence of him.
The court opined that maintenance can be declined, in the event, IF it is established and is proved that the wife is living in adultery. Therefore, living in in adultery means a continued adulterous conduct and not a single or occasional lapse.
Further, the Court remarked as it dismissed the plea of the husband that it is not the case of the petitioner that shortly prior to the institution of the petition or subsequent thereto, the respondent no.1 is continuously being living in adulterous life. Thus, the course of adulterous conduct must not be a matter of past, but must be continuing at the time of presentation of the petition.
It was alleged by the State that act of adultery is indicative of the fact that such act has been condoned and consequently, the allegation to the effect that the respondent no.1 was living in adulterous life way back in the year 2005 and the same cannot be termed to be a circumstance, which may be significant enough to dispute the claim of the respondents for claiming maintenance from the petitioner. Also, this is a significant circumstance which indicate that the proposed evidence is not essential to decide the controversy.
The post Mandatary to show wife was living in adultery shortly before or after moving maintenance plea to disentitle her to relief appeared first on The Daily Guardian.
