The Bombay High Court held that if the case of adultery is proved against wife, she won’t be entitled to maintenance. The judgment was given by Justice NW Sambre.

The petition was filed by one Sanjivani Kondalkar, challenging the judgment of Addition District Judge, who allowed the revision petition for the cancelling of maintenance by the husband of the petitioner. In this case, the couple got divorced after an application was filed by the husband under the Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Husband filed was seeking divorce of the grounds of adultery.

The petitioner, i.e. the wife, after she failed to file an appeal against the judgment of divorce on time, filed an application for enhancement of maintenance which was allowed, and the maintenance was increased to Rs. 500 for petitioner and Rs. 400 for her son. Against this the husband the husband moved an application for the cancellation of maintenance which was rejected by the court, but the revision petition filed by the husband in the court of the Additional District Judge was finally allowed and the maintenance was cancelled.

The Bombay High Court, after hearing both the parties held that if case of adultery is proved against a women and she refuses to cohabit, she can be refused the payment of maintenance. The court said that:

“The fact remains that, there is an expressed embargo on the right of a woman to claim maintenance, pursuant to the provisions under Sub-section (4) of section 125 of the Act. If the allegations of adultery are proved against such women or inspite of the husband being ready to maintain her and she refuses to cohabit the women/wife can be refused payment of maintenance.”

The High Court dismissed the petition by saying:

“Considering the expressed embargo on the right of the Petitioner, to claim maintenance particularly, divorce was ordered on 27.4.2000 based on the allegation of adultery, the Court below has rightly held that the Petitioner-wife is not entitled for maintenance.”

Link to the image:

Link to the judgment: Sanjivani Ramchandra Kondalkar v. Ramchandra Bimrao Kondalkar and Anr.