The Court said that the wife’s contention that she was legally wedded and thus entitled to maintenance cannot be accepted in view of her adulterous conduct.
In a recent judicial pronouncement, the Karnataka High Court established the principle that a spouse engaged in extramarital romantic involvement forfeits the entitlement to seek financial support. This determination was rendered by Justice Rajendra Badamikar during the adjudication of a woman’s petition for a reconsideration of a prior verdict that had denied her financial relief under the aegis of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Court’s decision was grounded in compelling evidentiary documentation, which unequivocally established the wife’s breach of marital fidelity and her amorous entanglement with a cohabiting neighbor.
“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 the petitioner, who is not honest and is leading adulterous life,” the order stated.
The Court also heard the wife’s claim that her husband had confessed to having a “bad relationship” with his sister-in-law’s daughter. However, the Court pointed out that there was disagreement about this claim and that they needed more information to be sure. Additionally, the Court mentioned,
“…since the petitioner is claiming maintenance, she must prove that she is honest and when she herself is not honest, she cannot pin-point her fingers towards her husband.”
The petitioner had previously invoked the Domestic Violence (DV) Act, seeking relief in the form of protection, housing, and financial support. Initially, a magistrate granted her request by issuing a protective order and awarding her ₹1,500 for maintenance, ₹1,000 for rent, and ₹5,000 as compensation.
However, this decision was subsequently reversed by an additional sessions judge in response to an appeal by the husband. The husband’s legal representative argued that the family court had already dissolved the marital relationship on grounds of adultery and cruelty.
Upon reviewing a petition challenging this reversal, the High Court determined that the magistrate had failed to adequately consider pertinent factors and had instead granted maintenance and compensation as a matter of course.
Furthermore, the Court acknowledged the validity of the additional sessions judge’s rejection of the petitioner’s claim on account of her extramarital affair. As no legal errors were found in the decision of the additional sessions judge, the Court dismissed the revision petition.
