Wife cannot claim maintenance when she is 'staying in adultery’: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court recently held that a wife cannot claim maintenance when she is in an adulterous relationship with another person..Justice Rajendra Badamikar made the observation while dismissing a woman’s revision petition against an order which refused to grant her maintenance under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).The Court said that the evidence clearly established that the petitioner-wife was not “honest” towards her husband and was having “extramarital affairs” with her neighbour, with whom she was also staying. "When the petitioner is staying in adultery, the question of she claiming maintenance does not arise at all. The contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is a legally wedded wife and entitled for maintenance cannot be accepted in view of the conduct of the petitioner, who is not honest and is leading adulterous life," the order stated..The Court also noted that the wife’s accusation that her husband was admittedly having an “illicit relationship” with the daughter of his sister-in-law was disputed. Moreover, it said,"...since the petitioner is claiming maintenance, she must prove that she is honest and when she herself is not honest, she cannot pin-point her fingers towards her husband.".The petitioner had earlier filed a petition under DV Act for protection and residential orders along with monetary benefit. A magistrate granted her a protection order and also awarded her maintenance of ₹1,500, ₹1,000 towards rent and ₹5,000 as compensation. The magistrate's decision was set aside by an additional sessions judge on an appeal filed by the husband. Counsel representing the husband said the marriage has already been set aside by a family court on the ground of adultery as well as cruelty. On a revision petition filed against this order, the High Court said that the magistrate had failed to appreciate any of these aspects and in a mechanical way awarded the maintenance and compensation.The Court added that the sessions judge had rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner in view of the fact that she was leading an adulterous life. Finding no perversity in the order of sessions judge, the Court dismissed the revision petition..Advocate Yadunanadan N and Advocate Gururaj R represented the petitioner.Advocate Lokesha PC represented the respondent..[Read Judgment]