The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sh. Pradeep Kumar Sharma vs Smt. Deepika Sharma consisting of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh while dismissing a criminal revision petition u/s 397/ 401 read with Section 482 CrPC observed that one or occasion acts of adultery committed in isolation would not amount to “living in adultery”.
Facts
The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and two children were born out of the wedlock. Due to various disputes several criminal and civil cases, complaints and FIRs were filed by both the parties against each other. The instant petition has been filed against the Order of the learned Additional Principal Judge passed in CC No. 6834/2016, filed by the respondent u/s 125 CrPC, whereby the learned Additional Principal Judge granted the maintenance of Rs. 6000/- per month from 14th February 2012 to 28th February 2013, Rs. 6000/- per month from 1st April 2014 to 31st December 2015, Rs. 7000/- per month from 1st January 2016 to 31st July 2020 and Rs. 15,000/- per month from 1st August 2020 till the life of the respondent or her remarriage on grounds of cruelty, living in adultery and desertion.
Contentions Made
Appellant: Impugned Order passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge was patently wrong, perverse and hence, liable to be set aside. Learned Additional Principal Judge failed to appreciate the evidence, other material on record and the provision under Section 125 of the CrPC while passing the impugned Order. The respondent was abundantly capable of maintaining herself. She left the company of the petitioner without any reason and started living separately.
Respondent: There is no error in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge granting maintenance to the respondent and the instant petition has failed to establish any substantial ground for challenging the same.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that the law originating from various precedents of various Courts established the position of payment of maintenance holding that the ground of cruelty does not disentitle the wife of her right to maintenance. So, the ground of cruelty and harassment did not stand ground for non-payment of the maintenance amount.
Relying on certain judgments regarding the ground of adultery taken by the petitioner, it was observed that the law mandates that in order to extract the provision under Section 125(4) of the CrPC the husband has to establish with definite evidence that the wife has been living in adultery, and ‘sporadic instances of sexual relationship between a wife and a person other than her husband, would not fall within the ambit of the expression “living in adultery”’. In the instant matter, the petitioner before the learned Additional Principal Judge sought the non-payment of maintenance on the ground of adultery u/s 125(4) of the CrPC, However, the grounds taken by him did not establish even prima facie that the respondent was living in adultery. So, the second ground also could not be established to contend that the respondent was not entitled to any maintenance.
The petitioner filed for divorce on the ground of cruelty, therefore, it was rightly observed that since the petitioner had sought divorce on the ground of cruelty, he could not have simultaneously urged that he was aggrieved by the alleged desertion of the respondent. Further, the petitioner, though has taken the ground that the respondent is capable enough to maintain herself and was employed, however, he was not able to prove the same.
Judgment
The order of maintenance was challenged despite there being clear mandate of law regarding all the questions led by the petitioner. Considering the mandate of law u/s 125 CrPC, the observations of the High Courts, and facts and circumstances of the present matter, the Court was not inclined to allow the instant petition, since the petitioner failed to show any ground for challenging the order under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, instant Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed.
Case Name: Sh. Pradeep Kumar Sharma vs Smt. Deepika Sharma
Citation: CRL.REV. P. 417/2021, CRL.M.A. 19829/2021 & CRL. M.A.86/2022
Bench: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh
Decided on: 13th April 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
