Wife's Love For Another Man Isn’t Adultery If No Physical Relationship, Rules MP High Court

Amidst changing marital dynamics and relationship scripts, a recent alimony and divorce case made headlines following a landmark ruling by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The High Court emphasised that emotional infidelity alone is not grounds for adultery in marriage without physical evidence. Scroll down to learn more about the case. 

Wife's Emotional Attachment To Another Man Not Adultery

In his recent ruling, Madhya Pradesh High Court Justice GS Ahluwalia said, “A wife’s love and affection for another man does not constitute adultery in marriage unless it includes a proven physical relationship.” As reported by Bar and Bench, adultery by definition, necessitates sexual intercourse, he asserted. 

What Was The Case? 

The High Court judgement of adultery is currently garnering attention and buzz on social media. The observation followed a revised petition filed by a man challenging a family court’s order. The man claimed that since his wife had an affair with another man, she was not entitled to claim for maintenance. However, the court dismissed his petition, reaffirming that mere emotional involvement outside of marriage does not constitute adultery unless physical involvement is proven.

Don't Miss: Divorce Fact 101: Can A Woman Demand Maintenance From A Second Husband If Her First Marriage Is Still Valid? Legal Expert Explains

The court highlighted that, under Section 144 (5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a wife cannot be denied maintenance unless it is proven that she is living in adultery. Additionally, the court stated that, without evidence of a physical relationship, an allegation of adultery cannot be sustained. 

Furthermore, the man, who claimed to be working as a ward boy earning Rs 8000 per month, argued that his wife was already receiving Rs 4000 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and that awarding an additional Rs 4000 under Section 125 (4) of the CrPC would be excessive. However, the High Court  found no merit in his argument and upheld the family court’s decision.

Additionally, the High Court rejected the man’s claim that his wife was earning by running a beauty parlour. He failed to provide substantial evidence to prove that she owned or rented a shop for the business.

Don't Miss: Divorce Facts 101: Is It Required For An Earning Women To Pay Alimony To Husband? Legal Expert Weighs In

For more such stories, stay tuned to HerZindagi.

Image Courtesy: Freepik