Karnataka High Court: Spouse in Adultery Cannot Seek Maintenance

The Court said that the wife’s contention that she was legally wedded and thus entitled to maintenance cannot be accepted in view of her adulterous conduct.

The Karnataka High Court recently stated that if a spouse is in a romantic relationship outside of their marriage, they cannot ask for financial support.

Justice Rajendra Badamikar made this decision when he rejected a woman’s request to reconsider a previous ruling that denied her financial help under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).

The Court’s decision was based on clear evidence showing that the wife in question was not being faithful to her husband and was having romantic involvement with her neighbor, with whom she was also living.

“When the petitioner is staying in adultery, the question of she claiming maintenance does not arise at all. The contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is a legally wedded wife and entitled for maintenance cannot be accepted in view of the conduct of the petitioner, who is not honest and is leading adulterous life,” the order stated.

The Court further took cognizance of the wife’s contention that her husband had openly admitted to engaging in an “illicit relationship” with his sister-in-law’s daughter. However, the Court underscored that this claim was a matter of contention and subject to dispute. Furthermore, it articulated,

“…since the petitioner is claiming maintenance, she must prove that she is honest and when she herself is not honest, she cannot pin-point her fingers towards her husband.”

The petitioner had previously sought protection, housing, and financial support through the Domestic Violence (DV) Act. A magistrate granted her a protection order and awarded her ₹1,500 for maintenance, ₹1,000 for rent, and ₹5,000 as compensation.

However, an additional sessions judge, responding to the husband’s appeal, overturned the magistrate’s decision. The husband’s lawyer argued that the family court had already dissolved the marriage due to allegations of adultery and cruelty.

When the High Court reviewed a petition challenging this decision, it concluded that the magistrate had not properly considered these important factors and had granted maintenance and compensation in a routine manner.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the sessions judge was justified in rejecting the petitioner’s claim because of her involvement in an extramarital affair. Since there were no legal errors in the sessions judge’s decision, the Court dismissed the revision petition.