The Patna High Court has reaffirmed that isolated moral lapses do not strip a woman of her right to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The judgment brings clarity on the legal interpretation of the term “living in adultery” and its impact on a wife's entitlement to maintenance.

Justice Jitendra Kumar, while hearing a criminal revision petition, emphasized the distinction between “adultery” and “living in adultery.” He stated:

“Any physical relationship of a lady with any person prior to her marriage does not come within the definition of adultery… 'Living in adultery' denotes a continuous course of conduct and not isolated acts of immorality.”

The case arose after the Family Court in Bhagalpur ordered the husband, Avadh Kishore Sah, to pay ₹3,000 per month to his wife, Soni Devi, and ₹2,000 to their minor daughter. The husband challenged this ruling, alleging that his wife was engaged in an adulterous relationship with her brother-in-law and claimed the child was not his.

However, the Court found the husband's allegations to be unsubstantiated. Justice Kumar observed that the petitioner had not provided any detailed evidence to support his claim. He pointed out:

“The petitioner-husband has not made any specific pleadings regarding adulterous life of his wife… Except the bald allegation that his wife was having illicit relationship with her brother-in-law, there is no specific detail regarding time, place, or identity of the alleged adulterer.”

The Court further clarified that even if there were one or two moral lapses, it would not automatically disqualify a woman from receiving maintenance. It stressed that:

“A few moral lapse and a return back to a normal life cannot be said to be living in adultery.”

Addressing the issue of paternity, the Court referred to Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act. It emphasized that a child born during a valid marriage is presumed legitimate unless proven otherwise with strong evidence. The Court stated:

“O.P. No.3/Gudiya Kumari is born to Soni Devi during the subsistence of her marriage with the petitioner… she is presumed to be the legitimate daughter of Avadh Kishore Sah.”

Justice Kumar also noted that the husband had never filed any case to legally dispute the paternity of the child. As a result, the Court concluded that both the wife and daughter were entitled to receive maintenance.

Regarding the maintenance amount, the Court found the Family Court's order to be reasonable and justified based on the income and obligations of the husband.

“The quantum of maintenance awarded is not excessive considering the needs of the wife and child and the financial condition of the husband.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the husband’s petition and upheld the Family Court’s order.

Case Title: Awadh Kishore Sah vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Case No.: Criminal Revision No.262 of 2020