“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,” with this critical observation, the Chhattisgarh High Court analysed the interplay between a decree of divorce grounded on adultery and the entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court's observations centered on the legal implications of Section 125(4) of the CrPC, which stipulates that a wife is not entitled to maintenance if she is “living in adultery”.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from a marital dispute between Smt. Suman Dewangan and Resham Lal Dewangan, married on July 11, 2019, under Hindu rites. Smt. Suman (the respondent) alleged mental harassment, character defamation, and neglect by her husband and in-laws, leading her to leave the matrimonial home on March 1, 2021, after her mother's death. She sought Rs. 20,000 monthly maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, claiming she was unable to sustain herself and that her husband earned income from employment, rent, and agriculture. Resham Lal (the applicant) denied the claims, alleging Smt. Suman had an illicit relationship with his brother, left voluntarily, and that he earned only Rs. 17,131 as a contractual employee with no additional income. On November 6, 2024, the Family Court, Raipur, granted her Rs. 4,000 per month as maintenance. Both parties filed revision petitions before the High Court challenging the order’s adequacy and entitlement, particularly in view of a divorce decree granted to Resham Lal on September 8, 2023, on the grounds of adultery.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The counsel of the applicant contended that the Family Court’s order Rs. 4,000 monthly maintenance is perverse and contrary to law, ignoring his evidence under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC that he earns only Rs. 17,131 as a contractual data entry operator with no alternate income sources. The Counsel further submitted that the respondent was living in adultery with his younger brother, a fact legally established by a divorce decree, by the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, rendering her ineligible for maintenance under Section 125(4) of CrPC. It was also contended that the respondent left the matrimonial home voluntarily without sufficient reason and threatened him with false cases, causing duress, which the Family Court failed to consider.
Contentions of Respondent:
The respondent’s counsel argued that the awarded maintenance of Rs. 4,000 is inadequate considering the applicant’s substantial income from salary (Rs. 25,000), rental sources (Rs. 70,000 including Rs. 15,000 from a shop), and agricultural land details the Family Court allegedly overlooked. It was submitted that the respondent, with no means of livelihood, has suffered since leaving the matrimonial home in 2021 and the applicant has failed to pay even the awarded amount. The counsel contended that a divorce on the grounds of adultery does not bar maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC, which applies only to ongoing adulterous conduct, whereas the respondent now resides with her brother and sister-in-law. It was further argued that the Family Court ignored revenue documents evidencing additional income and relied solely on the applicant’s salary, contrary to the legislative intent of ensuring adequate maintenance.
Observations of the Court:
The Court held, "Sub-Section 4 of Section 125 of the CrPC provides that if a woman lives in adultery, whose marriage is still subsisting, she is not entitled for maintenance from her husband. Suppose, a decree for divorce is granted on the ground of her living in adultery, can it be said that the said disqualification of which she was suffering from all along, during the subsistence of the marriage, will cease to exist, because of the decree for divorce?. The prudent answer to this question shall be an emphatic - 'No'."
Further, the Court emphasized the evidential weight of the divorce decree, stating, "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. The decree is a decree passed on proof of the claim made by means of sufficient evidence which has not been challenged by the aggrieved party." This highlights the principle that an unchallenged judicial finding of adultery in a prior civil proceeding is binding in subsequent maintenance disputes under Section 125 of CrPC.
The Court also clarified the distinction between "living in adultery" and past instances of adulterous conduct, aligning with precedents such as Shiv Kumar Netam v. Meena Devi and Kamlesh v. Parwati. The Court rejected the wife's contention that her current residence with her brother negated the adultery finding, asserting, "When once such a decree is in force, it is not possible for this Court to take a different view contrary to the decree granted by the Civil court."
The decision of the Court:
Under the light of the foregoing discussion, the High Court of Chhattisgarh quashed the Family Court’s order, which had granted Rs. 4,000 monthly maintenance to the respondent. The Court held that the divorce decree, establishing the respondent’s adultery, was sufficient proof of her living in adultery, disqualifying her from claiming maintenance under Section 125(4) of CrPC, even post-divorce.
Case Title: Resham Lal Dewangan Vs. Suman Dewangan
Case No.: CRR No. 1322 of 2024
Coram: Justice Arvind Kumar Verma
Counsel for Appellant: Advocate P. Acharya
Counsel for Respondent: Advocate Shubhank Tiwari
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
