Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

Wife not entitled to permanent Alimony if living in Adultery - Punjab & Haryana High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Following the issuance of a divorce decision based solely on such adultery, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently refused lifelong alimony to a woman who was living in adultery.

The respondent-divorce husband's petition was granted by the Family Court in Ambala pursuant to Sections 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the appellant-wife filed an appeal against that decision.

The petition's facts stated that the appellant and respondent had been lawfully married since 1989 under the Hindu Marriage Act as husband and wife, respectively. The respondent-husband filed for divorce before the Family Court in Ambala on the grounds that his wife's behaviour was extremely rude and aggressive from the start of their marriage and that his wife used to abuse, insult, and humiliate him and his family members, making constant jokes about the respondent's financial situation and calling him "Namard"—all of which events caused him to become mentally ill.

Additionally, the respondent told the Trial Court that his wife had grown close to another man (the second respondent), and that as a result, he had to leave his home in 2006. Additionally, the second respondent used to visit his wife while the husband was abroad, and the second respondent used to converse to his wife on their mobile phones, as the husband's testimony from multiple witnesses established. The respondent husband did so by filing for divorce on the grounds of "cruelty" and "adultery."

Based on the respondent-allegations, husband's the Trial Court issued a divorce decree in accordance with Sections 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, confirming the husband's accusations of cruelty and adultery. The appellant-wife brought a permanent alimony claim before the High Court against the backdrop of that ruling.

Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Nidhi Gupta's division bench ruled that the appellant-wife is not qualified to request ongoing alimony payments from the respondent-husband.

The Delhi High Court's decision in Pradeep Kumar Sharma v. Deepika Sharma, Crl. Rev. P. No. 417 of 2021 and the court's decisions in Anil Kumar Sharma v. Asha Sharma, 2014 (36) R.C.R. (Civil) 812 and Anil Kumar Sharma v. Asha Sharma were distinguished by the court, who noted that in those cases, a permanent alimony claim was made after the divorce was granted on the grounds of cruelty and not adult Further, the Court noted a difference between the facts in Valsarajan v. Saraswathy, 2003(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 665, a Kerala High Court ruling that the appellant-wife had cited, and the facts in the current case, where the wife was living in adultery prior to the Trial Court issuing a divorce decree. In Valsarajan, the wife was living with another man after the divorce, whereas in the present case, she was living

The Court dismissed the petition, pointing out that the wife was accountable for both "adultery" and "cruelty," in addition to both.holding that petitioner was not entitled to permanent alimony.

ABC vs  XYZ and Anr.

Latest Legal News