The High Court of Chhattisgarh reaffirmed that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC can be refused to a wife if the Family Court arrives at credible findings of her adulterous conduct, after full consideration of evidence. The judgment upholds the Family Court’s discretion and evidentiary assessment, reinforcing existing law and setting binding precedent for all subordinate courts within the state, with persuasive value for other jurisdictions.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRR/348/2018 of SMT. ANITA RAM Vs PRABHAT KUMAR RAM |
| CNR | CGHC010099282018 |
| Date of Registration | 23-03-2018 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding (on subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh) |
| Type of Law | Family Law, Criminal Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether a legally wedded wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC if the Family Court finds credible evidence of her adultery. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that a legally wedded wife can be denied maintenance under Section 125 CrPC if the Family Court finds credible evidence supporting the husband’s allegations of her adulterous conduct. The judgment affirms the Family Court’s factual findings where proper evidence has been weighed. Allegations regarding the character of the wife, if proven credible by evidence, are sufficient grounds for rejecting her claim for maintenance. Furthermore, the amount of maintenance awarded to children by considering the respondent’s income, status, and price index was found to be appropriate and not on the lower side. No illegality or jurisdictional error was found in the Family Court’s order. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Applicant No. 1 (legal wife) sought maintenance; applicant No. 2 (daughter) and applicant No. 3 (son) also applied. Trial court found credible evidence supporting the husband’s claim of wife’s adulterous conduct and thus denied her maintenance. Maintenance of Rs. 10,000/month each was granted to the children. The applicants challenged the sufficiency and correctness of the order. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC can be lawfully denied to a wife if the Family Court finds credible and reliable evidence of adulterous conduct.
- The threshold for denying maintenance requires credible factual findings, not mere allegations.
- The High Court will not interfere with the Family Court’s factual appreciation if there is no jurisdictional error or perversity.
- The quantum of maintenance granted to dependent children will not be enhanced if the Family Court has duly considered the parties’ income, social status, and cost of living.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court first recapitulated the Family Court’s process: after hearing both parties, recording their respective evidence (the wife as AW-1 and the husband as NAW-1, along with two witnesses), the Family Court found the respondent’s allegations against the applicant wife credible.
- The High Court assessed whether there was any legal or factual infirmity in the Family Court’s findings and found none.
- The court clarified that credible proof of adultery disentitles the wife from maintenance.
- The adequacy of maintenance for the children was upheld, as the Family Court had objectively considered the father’s income and all relevant circumstances.
- The judgment affirms the Family Court’s discretion in evidence appreciation and maintains that higher courts will not interfere unless findings are perverse or without evidence.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and hence entitled to maintenance.
- The Family Court erred in relying on unproven and unreliable allegations regarding the petitioner’s character.
- No cogent or reliable evidence of adultery was produced by the respondent.
- The Family Court failed to consider the respondent’s substantial income and facts on record.
- The maintenance awarded to the children is inadequate and should be enhanced.
Respondent
- Applicant No. 1 is not entitled to any maintenance as she is leading an adulterous life.
- He is already providing for applicants No. 2 and 3.
Factual Background
Applicant No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent; applicants No. 2 and 3 are the respondent’s daughter and son. The applicants claimed maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, alleging neglect and the respondent’s substantial monthly income. The respondent denied the maintenance claim, alleging the wife’s adultery and stating he already supports the children. Evidence was led by both parties, and the Family Court found credible grounds of adultery against the wife, rejecting her maintenance claim but allowing maintenance for the children.
Statutory Analysis
The court discussed Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), emphasizing the proviso that a wife is not entitled to maintenance if she is living in adultery. The decision turned on factual application of this statutory bar, interpreting “credible evidence” as the threshold for denial of maintenance. No constitutional or other statutory provisions were analyzed.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No concurring or dissenting opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines were articulated by the court in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms and applies established law regarding denial of maintenance to an adulterous wife under Section 125 CrPC.
Citations
- 2025:CGHC:45142
- No SCC/AIR/neutral citations provided in the text.