MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator 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

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