A Delhi family court has dismissed the plea of a divorced woman who sought financial assistance from her estranged husband, holding that under the law, a wife proven to be living in adultery cannot claim maintenance. The case was presided over by Judge Namrita Aggarwal, who heard the arguments presented by the woman asserting that her husband, despite being morally and legally bound, was deliberately ignoring his duty to support her.
In its order dated August 20, the court referred to the findings of a predecessor court, which had already granted the couple a divorce on grounds of adultery. The earlier judgment had concluded that the woman was neither faithful nor loyal to her husband during their marriage. This conclusion was supported by a DNA test report that revealed a striking fact: while the woman was indeed the biological mother of one of the children, the husband was not the biological father.
The court pointed out that the woman had never contested the DNA findings or the divorce judgment. By not challenging these, she had indirectly admitted to having lived in an adulterous relationship. This, the judge emphasized, directly brought her within the scope of Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which explicitly states that a wife living in adultery is not entitled to maintenance from her husband.
The court also highlighted other circumstances surrounding the case. It noted that the woman had previously been charged with the murder of her mother-in-law and had remained in prison for nearly four years before being acquitted. That acquittal, however, was still under challenge in the Delhi High Court, casting further shadows over her conduct and credibility.
Beyond the question of adultery, the court also considered the woman’s financial independence. Evidence showed that she was residing with another individual and possessed properties from which she derived income. Since she had her own means to sustain herself, and because the husband was already bearing the responsibility of the children’s expenses, the judge ruled there was no justification for granting her additional financial support.
In conclusion, the court declared that the petitioner had failed to establish her entitlement to maintenance, both legally and morally. The combination of proven adultery, her financial self-sufficiency, and the husband’s ongoing support of their children made her claim untenable. The plea was accordingly rejected, with the court reiterating that maintenance is meant to aid those in genuine need, not to be extended to those who forfeit their rights through misconduct.
