Wife can be denied interim maintenance if adultery is clearly established: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court’s dispute was regarding a wife’s demand for maintenance pending the trial of her marriage case. The husband contested the claim and claimed that the wife had an adulterous relationship and that she was not entitled to maintenance. Looking at the material on record, the Court noted that allegations of adultery can not be taken on mere suspicion or unsubstantiated allegations but where it is prima facie and by the credible evidence, the statutory prohibition for payment of maintenance will be binding even at the interlocutory stage.
India has several laws regulating maintenance. Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (previously Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) provides that a wife who is not able to provide herself with necessities, can demand maintenance from her husband. But Section 144(4) BNSS stipulates that the wife shall not receive any maintenance when she is living in adultery, refuses to live with her husband without adequate reason or when both spouses are living separately by mutual consent.
In the same way, Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides that in the course of a matrimonial proceeding, the court may issue an interim maintenance order and payment of the litigation expenses to either of the spouses if they do not have enough resources of their own. Section 25 of the Act also provides for permanent alimony, depending upon the conduct of the parties and other factors. Therefore, maintenance provisions are remedial, and courts are free to take into account statutory disqualifications and the behaviour of the parties.
The Supreme Court noted that the phrase “living in adultery” has a legal connotation. It’s not about just one or an isolated instance of infidelity. But rather, a continuing course of adulterous relations or settled course of adulterous conduct. Accordingly, it is not enough to make vague accusations, rumours or unproven allegations to deny a wife any maintenance. It is up to the husband to prove the case and provide sufficient proof of the woman’s infidelity before the statutory disqualification will take effect.
The decisions in this case are consistent with earlier rulings by the courts, which have established that the purpose of the obligation for maintenance is to prevent destitution and not punishment to the spouse. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015), the Supreme Court said that the provisions of maintenance ought to be interpreted liberally as these have a welfare objective. On the other hand, where Parliament has enacted statutory exceptions which specifically exclude the evidence from the Court, the Court has also consistently found these exceptions to be unable to be ignored where the evidence clearly falls into the exceptions.
On a practical level, the decision confirms that claims of ‘adultery’ can no longer be a usual defence to applications for maintenance. The Family Courts are expected to grant interim relief only in the presence of credible documentary or oral evidence and have been mindful of this allegation. It is not enough to simply do the character assassination or simply to make unsubstantiated accusations that are then left in the mouth of the accuser.
The decision also demonstrates the balance which matrimonial law aims to achieve between the interests of a financially dependent spouse and the prevention of abuse of the statutory provisions. Maintenance continues to be a crucial tool for social welfare, but is not to be dispensed with without reference to specific statutory provisions which exclude those in certain position.
Finally, the Supreme Court’s decision affirms two equally significant tenets of family law. First, maintenance is a good remedy to guarantee financial security and dignity to dependent spouses. Second, when there are clear exceptions as set out in the law, for example a spouse living in adultery, courts have no discretion not to apply the exception, if there is cogent and convincing evidence of this.Secondly, where the law prescribes clear exceptions such as a spouse living in adultery the courts are obligated to do so on the basis of cogent and convincing evidence. The judgment, in this light, reinforces the protectionist purpose and the legal purity of Indian maintenance law.
