The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently denied permanent alimony to a wife living in adultery, after a divorce decree was passed on the ground of adultery.

The appellant-wife in the case filed an appeal challenging the judgment of the Family Court, Ambala, which had allowed the divorce petition filed by the respondent-husband under Sections 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The facts leading to the petition were that the appellant wife and the respondent husband were legally wedded  since 1989 under the Hindu Marriage Act. The respondent-husband moved a petition for divorce before the Family Court, Ambala, on grounds that the behaviour of his wife was extremely rude and aggressive right from the beginning of their marriage and that his wife used to abuse, insult and humiliate him and his family members, making continuous taunts relating to the respondent’s financial condition, also calling him ‘Namard‘ – all of which events made him mentally sick.

Further, the husband submitted before the Trial Court that his wife had developed an intimate relationship with another man (the second respondent), and the further circumstances led him to leave his house in 2006. It was also on record that his wife and the second respondent used to talk to each other on their mobile phones and that the second respondent used to visit his wife, when the husband used to be away
These claims were proved by the husband through various witnesses. Accordingly, the respondent husband filed for divorce on grounds of ‘cruelty’ and ‘adultery.’

The Trial Court, based on the averments made by the respondent-husband, granted a decree of divorce under Sections 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, affirming both cruelty and adultery as alleged by the husband. In the backdrop of that decree, the appellant-wife raised a permanent alimony claim before the High Court.

The division bench of Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Nidhi Gupta held that the appellant-wife is not entitled to claim permanent alimony from the respondent-husband.

Further, the Court distinguished the facts in Valsarajan v. Saraswathy, 2003(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 665, a decision of the Kerala High Court relied on by the appellant-wife, from the present facts, by observing that in Valsarajan, the wife was living with another man after divorce, as opposed to the present matter, where the wife was living in adultery before the Trial Court passed a decree for divorce.

Highlighting that since the wife was liable not just for ‘cruelty,’ but also ‘adultery,’ the Court dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner (wife) was not entitled to permanent alimony.