Facts
The Family Court allowed the respondent-wife’s petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and directed the petitioner-husband to pay maintenance of ₹3,000 per month from the date of filing
Source reference: para. 1The husband challenged the order, contending that the wife was living in adultery and was therefore disqualified from receiving maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC
Source reference: paras. 2, 5The High Court noted that the husband and his mother had not personally witnessed the alleged conduct, the daughter said to have witnessed it was not called as a witness, and no neighbour or other independent witness was produced
Source reference: paras. 7, 9Issues
Whether the wife was disqualified from receiving maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC on the ground that she was living in adultery
Source reference: paras. 5–7Whether the Family Court’s award of ₹3,000 per month required interference in revision
Source reference: paras. 5, 11Law Applied
Section 125(4) CrPC provides that a wife is not entitled to receive maintenance from her husband if she is living in adultery, refuses without sufficient reason to live with him, or the parties are living separately by mutual consent
Source reference: para. 6The husband asserting adultery bears the burden of establishing that ground with evidence; an unsupported allegation is insufficient
Source reference: paras. 7–10Reasoning
The High Court found no evidence establishing that the wife was living in adultery.
Source reference: paras. 7–9The husband and his mother had not seen her in a compromising position; the daughter alleged to have done so was not examined, and no independent witness was called to corroborate the allegation.
Source reference: paras. 7–9The husband’s sole ground for challenging the maintenance order therefore failed.
Source reference: paras. 7–9The wife’s separate residence was undisputed, and her evidence, supported by her brother’s statement, was that the husband had ill-treated her.
Source reference: para. 11The Court found no infirmity in the Family Court’s order.
Source reference: para. 11Holding
The High Court held that the husband had failed to prove the wife was living in adultery and that the Family Court’s maintenance award disclosed no ground for interference.
The revision petition was dismissed, as were any pending miscellaneous applications; the Court clarified that its findings were confined to the issues decided in these proceedings.
Source reference: para. 12Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731
Original Court PDF
PANJU RAMvsPARVINDA KUMARI
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
