Wife’s Love and Affection Towards Another Man Without Physical Relationship Not Adultery: MP HC

Post By 24 Law
June 25, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a wife's love and affection for someone other than her husband does not amount to adultery unless there exists a physical relationship. A single-judge bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia dismissed a husband’s plea challenging the grant of interim maintenance to his wife. The court emphasized that a wife can be denied maintenance only if it is proved that she is "living in adultery," which necessarily involves a sexual relationship with another man.

Court's Observation on Adultery

Clarifying the legal position, the Court stated: “From Section 144(5) of the BNSS/125(4) of the Cr.P.C. it is clear that only if the wife is proved to be living in adultery, then the maintenance amount can be denied. Adultery necessary means sexual intercourse. Even if a wife is having a love and affection towards somebody else without any physical relations, then that by itself cannot be sufficient to hold that the wife is living in adultery.”

Case Background

The husband had challenged the Family Court’s order directing him to pay ₹4,000 per month as interim maintenance. He argued that his wife was already receiving ₹4,000 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and that additional maintenance was excessive. He further contended that she was financially independent, running a beauty parlour, and therefore not entitled to maintenance. Additionally, the petitioner cited a diary entry allegedly written by his wife, claiming it demonstrated her involvement with another man and a threat of self-harm. He also claimed financial distress, asserting that his father had dispossessed him of family property through a public notice. The court, after examining the diary entry, noted that it contained statements indicating that the wife had been deceived regarding the husband's financial and property status before marriage. The diary also mentioned instances of physical abuse and allegations made against the wife’s mother.

Court’s Response to Husband’s Arguments

On the Wife’s Alleged Financial Independence

The court dismissed the argument that the wife was financially independent, stating: “Mere bald submission that wife is running a beauty parlour is not sufficient to deny interim maintenance to her, specifically when no document has been filed to show that either the wife of the applicant is running a beauty parlour in a shop owned by her or in a shop taken by her on rent.”

On the Husband’s Limited Income Claim

Rejecting the plea that his income was insufficient to pay maintenance, the Court stated: “Meager income of the husband cannot be a criteria to deny maintenance. If the applicant has married a girl knowing fully well that he is not competent to even fulfil his own daily needs then for that he himself is responsible but if he is an able-bodied person then he has to earn something to maintain his wife or to pay the maintenance amount.”

On Husband’s Dispossession from Property

The Court also rejected the claim that the husband was dispossessed from family property, noting that he continued to reside with his father. It observed: “If the applicant was already dispossessed from the property of his father then how he is residing with his father because the address given in the public notice and address of the applicant given in the cause title is same.”

Analysis of the Court’s Reasoning

The court took into account that there were no pending proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights and referenced a recent Supreme Court ruling in Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi Vs. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato, which held that even if a decree under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been passed, the wife is still entitled to maintenance. The court reiterated that maintenance should not be denied based on unverified claims of financial independence or allegations of extramarital affection without physical relations.

Verdict

Finding no illegality in the Family Court's order, the High Court upheld the interim maintenance of ₹4,000 and dismissed the petition. The Court reiterated that the legal definition of adultery involves sexual intercourse, and a mere emotional connection or affection towards another man does not fall within its ambit.