Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules on Maintenance in Adultery Case: A Legal Breakdown : Resham Lal Dewangan vs. Smt. Suman Dewangan, delivered on 9 May 2025

-

 


๐Ÿ”น Case Overview:

In a crucial ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court in CRR No. 1322/2024 and CRR No. 58/2025 addressed cross-revision petitions concerning an order passed by the Family Court in a Section 125 CrPC maintenance case.

The core legal question revolved around whether a woman found to be living in adultery — based on a decree of divorce granted on adultery grounds — remains entitled to claim maintenance from her husband.

๐Ÿ”น Facts in Brief:

  • Marriage Date: 11 July 2019

  • Separation Date: 1 March 2021 (wife left the matrimonial home)

  • The wife, Smt. Suman Dewangan, filed for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, claiming her husband earned over ₹1,00,000/month through employment, rental, and agricultural income.

  • The Family Court granted ₹4,000/month as maintenance.

๐Ÿ”น Husband’s Contention:

  • Resham Lal Dewangan challenged the order, stating:

    • He was a contractual Data Entry Operator, earning ₹17,131/month.

    • A divorce decree was granted on 8 September 2023 due to his wife’s proven adulterous relationship with his younger brother.

    • Under Section 125(4) CrPC, a wife living in adultery is not entitled to maintenance.

๐Ÿ”น Wife’s Stand:

  • She requested enhancement of maintenance to ₹20,000/month, arguing:

    • Her husband had multiple income sources.

    • The decree of divorce does not bar maintenance, as she was not “living in adultery” at the time of filing.

    • Mere past acts of adultery should not result in denial of maintenance if there’s no continuous adulterous conduct.

She relied on several precedents distinguishing between “living in adultery” and “having lived in adultery.”

๐Ÿ”น Legal Discussion:

  • The High Court examined the legal interpretation of “living in adultery” under Section 125(4) CrPC.

  • Referred to:

    • Shiv Kumar Netam v. Meena Devi

    • Kamlesh v. Parwati

    • Shanthakumari v. Thimmegowda

    • The term implies ongoing adulterous conduct, not isolated incidents.

  • However, in this case, the divorce decree was based on substantiated adultery, and not appealed or set aside.

๐Ÿ”น High Court's Findings:

  • The divorce decree was granted due to proven adultery, not just allegations.

  • Once such a decree is in force, the disqualification under Section 125(4) CrPC applies.

  • The Family Court erred in granting maintenance despite this legal bar.

๐Ÿ›️ Final Verdict:

  • CRR No. 1322/2024 (by husband): Allowed

  • CRR No. 58/2025 (by wife): Dismissed

  • The maintenance order of ₹4,000/month was quashed.

  • The Court held that a wife proven to be living in adultery — resulting in a divorce decree — is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

๐Ÿ“Œ Key Takeaway for Legal Professionals:

This judgment reaffirms that adultery, if proven and resulting in a divorce, serves as a bar to maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC. Courts will uphold such disqualification if the decree remains unchallenged.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Important sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) along with key points:

-
Important sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) along with key points: Chapter-wise Important Sections of BNS, 2023 General Principles & Definitions Section 1 – Short title, extent, and commencement Section 2 – Definitions (similar to IPC, but some terms updated) Section 3 – Punishment of offenses committed beyond India but by Indian citizens General Exceptions (Defense to Criminal Liability) Section 20 – Act done by a child below 7 years is not an offense Section 21 – Act done by a child above 7 but below 12, considering maturity Section 24 – Right of private defense (self-defense provisions) Section 25 – Right of private defense extending to causing death in certain cases Offenses Against the State Section 111 – Waging war against the Government of India Section 113 – Sedition (modified from IPC; now called "acts endangering sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India") Offenses Affecting Public Tranquility ...
Read more

MCQs on Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

-
Here is a set of 20 multiple-choice questions (MCQs) based on the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, focusing on both conceptual understanding and practical application. Each question is followed by an explanation. MCQs on Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 General Principles & Definitions Which of the following is a fundamental principle introduced in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023? a) Rehabilitation-focused punishment b) Community service as an alternative to imprisonment c) Stringent punishment for organized crime and terrorism d) Legalization of certain offenses under previous laws Answer: c) Stringent punishment for organized crime and terrorism Explanation: The BNS 2023 enhances penalties for offenses like terrorism, mob lynching, and organized crime to strengthen national security. Under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which term replaces the word ‘offense’ used in IPC, 1860? a) Crime b) Illegality c) Apradh d) Wrongdoing Answer: c) Apradh Explanation: The term...
Read more

The Hon'ble Supreme Court Landmark rulings on Impleadment of Parties (Striking out or adding parties at any stage of a proceeding) necessary and Proper Party Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, 1908

-
Image
Hon'ble Supreme Court Landmark rulings on Impleadment of Parties (necessary and Proper Party ) order 1 rule 10 of the CPC, 1908  Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre , Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal , and Sumtibai v. Paras Finance Co. , focusing on impleadment of parties under Order I Rule 10(2), CPC in specific performance suits . Comparative Case Analysis: Impleadment of Parties in Specific Performance Suits Case Name Key Issue Held Position on Impleadment Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre (2010) 7 SCC 417 Can a third party with prospective interest in the suit property be impleaded? ❌ No impleadment A party with only expectation of acquiring interest (not an existing right) is not a proper or necessary party . The plaintiff's choice of whom to sue is respected unless the twin test is met. Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal (2005) 6 SCC 733 Can a person claiming adverse title to both plaintiff and defendant be impleaded? ...
Read more