In the recent ruling by High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore, Justice Prem Narayan Singh presided over Criminal Revision of 2019 between Vijendra, represented by Advocate Shri Piyush Shrivastav, and Smt. Rekhabai and Ku. Aradhya, and represented by Advocate Ms. Jyotsana Rathore.
A thorough legal analysis was prompted by the revision petition, which asked the Family Court to reduce the maintenance that had been granted. Citing a divorce order given due to adultery, the petitioner argued that the Family Court's maintenance amount was disproportionate.
"The learned trial Court has awarded maintenance @ Rs. 6000/ per month on the higher side," contended Advocate Shrivastav. The divorce judgment was granted due to adultery, which suggests pertinent conclusions for the current situation. To support his contention, Advocate Shrivastav referenced a judgment by the Madras High Court in the case of M. Chinna Karuppasamy vs. Kanimozhi, where it was observed, “A divorced wife living in adultery is disqualified from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.”
In response, Ms. Jyotsana Rathore, the respondents' counsel, objected by claiming that the respondent's remarriage did not always equate to adultery. "Under Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C., “Only continuous and repeated acts of adultery warrant disqualification from maintenance under Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C.”
The court carefully considered the case laws cited by both counsels. Referring to the case law, Justice Prem Narayan Singh remarked, “Living in adultery connotes a course of adulterous conduct more or less continuous, and not occasional.”
Quoting previous judgments, the court reiterated, “A solitary act of adultery or an isolated lapse does not disentitle the wife from claiming maintenance. It is only continuous and repeated acts of adultery that would attract the provisions under Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C.”
The court determined that the trial court's conclusions were reasonable after carefully examining the available data and arguments. Given the circumstances, the maintenance award of Rs. 3,000 per month for the wife and Rs. 3,000 per month for the daughter was judged appropriate.
In a detailed and nuanced judgment, Justice Prem Narayan Singh affirmed, “The revision petition stands dismissed, and the order of the learned trial Court is hereby affirmed.”
Case Name: VIJENDRA Vs. SMT REKHABAE
Case No.: CRIMINAL REVISION No. 790 of 2019
Bench: Justice Prem Narayan Singh
Order dated: 15.04.2024
To get free legal advice: click here
For more legal updates visit our Youtube channel: click here
.jpeg&w=80&h=80&crop-to-fit)
