In FAO-M-132-2009 (O&M)-PUNJ HC-P&H HC denies permanent alimony to wife after considering that she was living in adultery Justices Ritu Bahri and Nidhi Gupta [27-09-2022]

Read Order: Sangeeta Sekhri v. Sharat Sekhri and Another

Based on the fact that the wife was living in adultery, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that she was not entitled for permanent alimony. 

The appellant, before the Bench of Justices Ritu Bahri and Nidhi Gupta, came up in appeal against the judgement and decree of the Family Court whereby the petition for the grant of divorce was allowed.

The facts of the case are that after their marriage in 1989, the parties started having rough patches in their relationship on account of the mental cruelty inflicted by the wife. She allegedly abused, insulted and humiliated her husband and his family members on account of the husband's financial position.

Since no issue was born even after ten years of marriage, the appellant-wife started calling the husband Namard (impotent), due to which he became mentally sick. The wife later started an affair with another person who was residing in the same locality. On account of this, the husband left his house. 

In response to his letter to the Police, an inquiry was conducted and she was found guilty of treating the respondent-husband with cruelty and of living in adultery.

Considering that the husband had undergone acute mental cruelty on account of the rude and aggressive behaviour of his wife and also considering that she kept calling her husband Namard (impotent) and had illicit relations with another man, the Trial Court granted him decree of divorce under Sections 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

After hearing the parties, the Court observed that the appellant's counsel was not able to lead any evidence which could reverse the finding of extra-marital affairs of appellant-wife with another man. Further, the Court added that the enquiry report coupled with the evidence given by the husband's friend and his house help consistently proved that appellant-wife was living in adultery.

Thus, having held this, the only question left for the Court's consideration was whether the appellant-wife was entitled to permanent alimony. 

After distinguishing the case laws cited by the appellant's counsel from the facts of the present case where the wife was living in adultery, the Court was of the view that the appellant was not entitled for permanent alimony.

Distinguishing one such case law, the Bench added, 

"... which cannot be applicable in the present case for grant of permanent alimony as that was the case where divorce was granted on the ground of mental cruelty as the wife made a complaint against her husband and his family members under Sections 406 and 498A IPC. That was not the case of adultery."

The appeal was thus dismissed.