CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court

Living in Adultery Requires Continuous Conduct, Not Isolated Incidents: MP High Court Upholds Maintenance to Ex-Wife in Adultery Allegation Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a landmark decision on 12th March 2024, addressed the complex issue of maintenance in the context of adultery allegations. Justice Prakash Chandra Gupta, presiding over the case, emphasized that allegations of adultery must reflect a continuous course of conduct and not just isolated incidents to disentitle a spouse to maintenance.

 

The critical legal question revolved around the interpretation of 'living in adultery' under Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. and its implications for maintenance entitlement. Additionally, the admissibility of digital photographs as evidence under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act was scrutinized.

 

In this case, Ravi Kiran Arigela, the petitioner, challenged the maintenance awarded to his ex-wife, D. Asha, by the Family Court in Indore. He alleged that she was living in adultery, substantiating his claims with digital photographs. The court was tasked with determining whether these allegations and the presented evidence could legally justify the cessation of maintenance payments.

 

On Adultery and Maintenance: The court referenced several precedents, including the Delhi High Court's decision in Sh Pradeep Kumar Sharma V Smt. Deepika Sharma [2022 Livelaw (Del) 324], to highlight that occasional acts of adultery do not amount to living in adultery. It must be a continuous conduct.

 

Evidence and Admissibility: Justice Gupta scrutinized the digital photographs presented. Despite Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 allowing leniency in admissibility, the court found these photographs, without certification under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, insufficient to prove continuous adulterous conduct.

Concluding that the petitioner failed to establish his claims convincingly, the High Court dismissed the revision petition. The decision upheld the trial court’s maintenance award to the respondent, D. Asha, reaffirming her right to maintenance in the absence of concrete evidence of continuous adulterous conduct.

 Date of Decision: Date of Decision: 12.03.2024

Ravi Kiran Arigela vs. D. Asha,

 

Latest Legal News