The new Maintenance Judgement is against men or in favour of wife that has to be seen from a presepective.
The Maintenance laws are obviously considers right of wife to get maintainance we cannot say that law is in favour of women, when the law is already there.
But the new Judgement only clarify the procedure to decide maintainance case.
It is well settled that a wife can make a claim for maintenance under different statutes. For instance, there is no bar to seek maintenance both under the D.V. Act and Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., or under H.M.A. It would, however, be inequitable to direct the husband to pay maintenance under each of the proceedings, independent of the relief granted in a previous proceeding. If maintenance is awarded to the wife in a previously instituted proceeding, she is under a legal obligation to disclose the same in a subsequent proceeding for maintenance, which may be filed under another enactment. While deciding the quantum of maintenance in the subsequent proceeding, the civil court/family court shall take into account the maintenance awarded in any previously instituted proceeding, and determine the maintenance payable to the claimant.
To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, we direct that in a subsequent maintenance proceeding, the applicant shall disclose the previous maintenance proceeding, and the orders passed therein, so that the Court would take into consideration the maintenance already awarded in the previous proceeding, and grant an adjustment or set-off of the said amount. If the order passed in the previous proceeding requires any modification or variation, the party would be required to move the concerned court in the previous proceeding.
2. Income Affidavit
Keeping in mind the need for a uniform format of Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to be filed in maintenance proceedings, this Court considers it necessary to frame guidelines in exercise of our powers under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India : (a) The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed at Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed by the parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the concerned Family Court / District Court / Magistrate’s Court, as the case may be, throughout the country; (b) The applicant making the claim for maintenance will be required to file a concise application accompanied with the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets; (c) The respondent must submit the reply alongwith the Affidavit of Disclosure within a maximum period of four weeks. The Courts may not grant more than two opportunities for submission of the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to the respondent. If the respondent delays in filing the reply with the Affidavit, and seeks more than two adjournments for this purpose, the Court may consider exercising the power to strike off the defence of the respondent, if the conduct is found to be wilful and contumacious in delaying the proceedings.
On the failure to file the Affidavit within the prescribed time, the Family Court may proceed to decide the application for maintenance on basis of the Affidavit filed by the applicant and the pleadings on record;
The pleadings made in the applications for maintenance and replies filed should be responsible pleadings; if false statements and misrepresentations are made, the Court may consider initiation of proceeding u/S. 340 Cr.P.C., and for contempt of Court.
In contemporary society, where several marriages do not last for a reasonable length of time, it may be inequitable to direct the contesting spouse to pay permanent alimony to the applicant for the rest of her life. The duration of the marriage would be a relevant factor to be taken into consideration for determining the permanent alimony to be paid.
Criteria for quantum of Maintenance
A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home.
The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort.
Enforcement of Maintenance Order
The order or decree of maintenance may be enforced like a decree of a civil court, through the provisions which are available for enforcing a money decree, including civil detention, attachment of property, etc. as provided by various provisions of the CPC, more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 read with Order XXI.
Striking off the defence of the respondent is an order which ought to be passed in the last resort, if the Courts find default to be wilful and contumacious, particularly to a dependant unemployed wife, and minor children. Contempt proceedings for wilful disobedience may be initiated before the appropriate Court
With so many ambiguities in deciding maintenance cases the Hon’ble supreme court has decided to frame guidelines throughout the country to decide maintenance cases.
Basically to give uniformity to the procedure to be followed throughout the country here are the key points and various judgements
(a) Issue of overlapping jurisdiction To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, it has become necessary to issue directions in this regard, so that there is uniformity in the practice followed by the Family Courts/District Courts/Magistrate Courts throughout the country. We direct that:
(i) where successive claims for maintenance are made by a party under different statutes, the Court would consider an adjustment or setoff, of the amount awarded in the previous proceeding/s, while determining whether any further amount is to be awarded in the subsequent proceeding; (ii) it is made mandatory for the applicant to disclose the previous proceeding and the orders passed therein, in the subsequent proceeding; (iii) if the order passed in the previous proceeding/s requires any modification or variation, it would be required to be done in the same proceeding.
(b) Payment of Interim Maintenance The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed as Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed by both parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the concerned Family Court / District Court / Magistrates Court, as the case may be, throughout the country.
(c) Criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance
For determining the quantum of maintenance payable to an applicant, the Court shall take into account the criteria enumerated in Part B – III of the judgment.
Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance (i) The objective of granting interim / permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependant spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded.
The factors which would weigh with the Court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependant children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife.
In Manish Jain v Akanksha Jain this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant-wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the Court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependant family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The Court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able bodied and has educational qualifications.
(ii) A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home.
The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort.
(iii) Section 23 of HAMA provides statutory guidance with respect to the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of HAMA provides the following factors which may be taken into consideration : (i) position and status of the parties, (ii) reasonable wants of the claimant, (iii) if the petitioner/claimant is living separately, the justification for the same, (iv) value of the claimant’s property and any income derived from such property, (v) income from claimant’s own earning or from any other source. (iv) Section 20(2) of the D.V. Act provides that the monetary relief granted to the aggrieved woman and / or the children must be adequate, fair, reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved woman was accustomed to in her matrimonial home.
(v) The Delhi High Court in Bharat Hedge v Smt. Saroj Hegde37 laid down the following factors to be considered for determining maintenance : “1. Status of the parties.
Reasonable wants of the claimant. 3.The independent income and property of the claimant.
The number of persons, the non-applicant has to maintain.
The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home.
Non-applicant’s liabilities, if any.
Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance and treatment etc. of the applicant.
Payment capacity of the non-applicant.
Some guess work is not ruled out while estimating the income of the non-applicant when all the sources or correct sources are not disclosed.
The non-applicant to defray the cost of litigation.
The amount awarded u/s 125 Cr.PC is adjustable against the amount awarded u/ 24 of the Act. 17.” (vi) Apart from the aforesaid factors enumerated hereinabove, certain additional factors would also be relevant for determining the quantum of maintenance payable. (a) Age and employment of parties In a marriage of long duration, where parties have endured the relationship for several years, it would be a relevant factor to be taken into consideration. On termination of the relationship, if the wife is educated and professionally qualified, but had to give up her employment opportunities to look after the needs of the family being the primary caregiver to the minor children, and the elder members of the family, this factor would be required to be given due importance. This is of particular relevance in contemporary society, given the highly competitive industry standards, the separated wife would be required to undergo fresh training to acquire marketable skills and re-train herself to secure a job in the paid workforce to rehabilitate herself. With advancement of age, it would be difficult for a dependant wife to get an easy entry into the work-force after a break of several years. 37 140 (2007) DLT 16. (b) Right to residence Section 17 of the D.V. Act grants an aggrieved woman the right to live in the “shared household”. Section 2(s) defines “shared household” to include the household where the aggrieved woman lived at any stage of the domestic relationship; or the household owned and rented jointly or singly by both, or singly by either of the spouses; or a joint family house, of which the respondent is a member. The right of a woman to reside in a “shared household” defined under Section 2(s) entitles the aggrieved woman for right of residence in the shared household, irrespective of her having any legal interest in the same. This Court in Satish Chander Ahuja v Sneha Ahuja38 (supra) held that “shared household” referred to in Section 2(s) is the shared household of the aggrieved person where she was living at the time when the application was filed, or at any stage lived in a domestic relationship. The living of the aggrieved woman in the shared household must have a degree of permanence. A mere fleeting or casual living at different places would not constitute a “shared household”. It is important to consider the intention of the parties, nature of living, and nature of the household, to determine whether the premises is a “shared household”. Section 2(s) read with Sections 17 and 19 of the D.V. Act entitles a woman to the right of residence in a shared household, irrespective of her having any legal interest in the same. There is no requirement of law that the husband should be a member of the joint family, or that the household must belong to the joint family, in which he or the aggrieved woman has any right, title or interest. The shared household may not necessarily be owned or tenanted by the husband singly or jointly. Section 19 (1)(f) of the D.V. Act provides that the Magistrate may pass a residence order inter alia directing the respondent to secure the same level of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved woman as enjoyed by her in the shared household. While passing such an order, the Magistrate may direct the Civil Appeal No. 2483 / 2020 decided vide Judgment dated 15.10.2020 respondent to pay the rent and other payments, having regard to the financial needs and resources of the parties. (c) Where wife is earning some income The Courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. The Courts have provided guidance on this issue in the following judgments. In Shailja & Anr. v Khobbanna, 39 this Court held that merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The Court has to determine whether the income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home. Sustenance does not mean, and cannot be allowed to mean mere survival.
In Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. v Anil Kachwaha 42 the wife had a postgraduate degree, and was employed as a teacher in Jabalpur. The husband raised a contention that since the wife had sufficient income, she would not require financial assistance from the husband. The Supreme Court repelled this contention, and held that merely because the wife was earning some income, it could not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance. The Bombay High Court in Sanjay Damodar Kale v Kalyani Sanjay Kale43 while relying upon the judgment in Sunita Kachwaha (supra), held that neither the mere potential to earn, nor the actual earning of the wife, howsoever meagre, is sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance. An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family, as held by the Delhi High Court in Chander Prakash Bodhraj v Shila Rani Chander 39 (2018) 12 SCC 199. See also Decision of the Karnataka High Court in P. Suresh v S. Deepa & Ors., 2016 Cri LJ 4794.
The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the Court. This Court in Shamima Farooqui v Shahid Khan45 cited the judgment in Chander Prakash (supra) with approval, and held that the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance stands on a higher pedestal than the wife. (d) Maintenance of minor children The living expenses of the child would include expenses for food, clothing, residence, medical expenses, education of children. Extra coaching classes or any other vocational training courses to complement the basic education must be factored in, while awarding child support. Albeit, it should be a reasonable amount to be awarded for extra-curricular / coaching classes, and not an overly extravagant amount which may be claimed. Education expenses of the children must be normally borne by the father. If the wife is working and earning sufficiently, the expenses may be shared proportionately between the parties. (e) Serious disability or ill health Serious disability or ill health of a spouse, child / children from the marriage / dependant relative who require constant care and recurrent expenditure, would also be a relevant consideration while quantifying maintenance.
The aforesaid factors are however not exhaustive, and the concerned Court may exercise its discretion to consider any other factor/s which may be necessary or of relevance in the facts and circumstances of a case.
(d) Date from which maintenance is to be awarded We make it clear that maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing the application for maintenance, as held in Part B – IV above. (e) Enforcement / Execution of orders of maintenance For enforcement / execution of orders of maintenance, it is directed that an order or decree of maintenance may be enforced under Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956; Section 20(6) of the D.V. Act; and Section 128 of Cr.P.C., as may be applicable. The order of maintenance may be enforced as a money decree of a civil court as per the provisions of the CPC, more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 r.w. Order XXI.
The question is can you put a case of defamation on wife after you get acquittal in 498a.
The issue has complicated answer and has mixed set of judgments some are in favor of husband and some are against.
Before proceeding let us analyse what is section 499 of IPC is
Section 499. Defamation – Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person. Explanation 1.- It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives. Explanation 2.- It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. Explanation 3.- An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation. Explanation 4.- No imputation is said to harm a person’s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit
public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
First Exception.- Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published.- It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.
Ninth Exception.- Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other’s interests.- It is not defamation to make an imputation
Gen-really two exceptions are taken when imputation is made in pleadings
But do pleadings in court amount to publication?
Now there are conflicting decisions…
J. Gnana Kumar Vs. Joy Kanmani reported in LAWS (MAD)-2007-11- 513, wherein the respondent wife had instituted a private complaint against her husband for the alleged offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC. The Madras High Court was pleased to observe that, one of the basic legal requirements of Section 499 of IPC is that, the imputation should be either made directly to the knowledge of third parties, or the same should be published to the knowledge of the third parties. However, in the case before it, even as per the allegations made in the complaint, it observed that, the imputations cannot be considered as published either directly or indirectly since they were pleadings filed
before the Court of Law which are not public documents to which anybody can have free access. The Madras High Court, however, opined in the same case that, though the pleadings are handled by the Court staff and copy is furnished to the respondent therein, which can be made public even by the respondent, but those things would not amount to publication by the accused. Learned counsel for the accused also relied upon a judgment by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of S. Nagaraj Vs. K. Nanda Kumar reported in LAWS(KAR)-2014-10-20, wherein this Court was pleased to observe that, the complainant alleging defamation is required to establish that the defamatory matter was published or that it was communicated to some person other than the person about whom it is addressed. It was further observed that, mere communication of the defamatory matter to the person defamed is not ‘publication’ and that the ‘publication’
should be made to others with an intention to defame the concerned person – publication to person defamed may amount to an insult and not ‘defamation’. Learned counsel for the accused also relied upon the judgment of another co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Chirashree Das Gupta Vs. Amitabh Das S/o. Late Punyanand Das reported in LAWS(KAR)- 2018-8-304, wherein this Court was pleased to observe that making a defamatory matter known after it has been written to some person other than the person for whom it is written is a ‘publication’ in its legal sense. A defamatory matter must, therefore, be communicated to some person other than the person concerning whom it is written. Communicating a defamatory matter to the person concerned only cannot be said to be a publication.
In the case of Smt. Madhuri Mukund Chitnis Vs. Mukund Martand Chitnis and another reported in 1990 CRL.L.J. 2084, the Bombay High Court was pleased to observe that, the imputations made in a proceeding which is filed in a Court is clearly a publication. It further observed that even a publication to an authority over the person against whom the imputations are made must be held to be sufficient publication which falls within the purview of the said Section 499 of IPC. In the case of M.K. Prabhakaran and another Vs.T.E. Gangadharan and another reported in 2006 CRI.L.J. 1872, the Kerala High Court, in a matter where it is alleged that defamatory statements against
complainant were made in a written statement filed before the Court held that, once a statement has been filed in a Court of Law, that statement can be taken as published. If such a statement amounts to per se defamatory, then it is the duty of the accused to establish that, they are justified in making such a statement under any of the exceptions to Section 499 of IPC. In the case of Sanjay Mishra Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & another, the Delhi High Court in paragraphs 11 and 12 of its judgment was pleased to observe as below:- “11. In Sandyal V.Bhaba Sundari Debi 7 Ind.Cas.803:15 C.W.N. 995:14 C.L.J.31 the learned Judges, following the case of Augada Ram Shaha V. Nemai Chand Shaha 23 C.867;12 Ind.Dec.(n.s.)576, held that defamatory statements made in the written statement of a party in a judicial proceedings are not absolutely privileged in this country, and that a qualified privilege in this
regard cannot be claimed in respect of such statements, unless they fall within the Exceptions to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. Undisputedly, the case of the petitioner was not in any of these Exceptions.
For criminal purposes “publication” has a wider meaning than it has in civil law, since it includes a communication to the person defamed alone. The prosecution for defamation in criminal cases can be brought although the only publication is to the person defamed as it is very likely to provoke a breach between the persons involved….” In the case of Thangavelu Chettiar Vs. Ponnammal reported in AIR 1966 Mad 363, the Madras High Court was pleased to observe that, there can be no doubt that the defamation contained in the plaint was published by the plaint being filed in the Court.
Conclusion
In the case of Sushma Rani the court has held that the putting false allegations
Generally, when mutual consent divorce is filed from Husband as well as from the wife side at the time of first motion some money is handed over to the wife side to the husband side and at the second motion next installment is to be paid.
No wife or husband can come under influence of many elements and do not turn up for 2nd motion petition.
So the question is whether the consent can be withdrawn in case the wife or husband withdraw to get into second motion.
On the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime, the Court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been solemnized and that the averments in the petition are true, pass a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of the decree.’ A reading of this sub-section would show that the scheme of S. 13Bof the Act does not envisage withdrawal of consent by one party. The petition can be dismissed as withdrawn only if both the parties who had filed the petition together agree to withdraw the same. Six months after the date of the presentation of the petition and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn by both the parties, the Court has to satisfy itself, after haring the parties and after making such inquiries as it thinks fit, that the petition was in fact presented by both the parties to the marriage, that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. If both the parties had voluntarily consented to file the petition for dissolving the marriage by mutual constant and all the other conditions mentioned in sub-section (1) of S. 13B of the Act are fulfilled, it will not be open to a party to withdraw the consent. In. the present case, without making an inquiry under sub-sea (2) the trial court had dismissed the petition as withdrawn which could not be done merely on the asking of one party.”
The main reason to withdraw the consent can be undue influence, force coercion etc.
The 498a case is filed by wife side is clearly for the harassment .
In one of my case my clients were living outside the state where the 498a case was lodged and considering today’s lockdown conditions the police is insisting that the accused with family should travel and join investigation.
Nothing is wrong in joining the investigation part but the issue with the police calls accused party unnecessary for obvious reasons.
Now here are the two things which you can do..
Apply for Anticipatory Bail
In such situations it is recommended to apply for the anticipatory bail so that possibility of arrest is negated if you are unable to join the investigation on a specified date.
It will protect you throughout the trial see my article .
Second option is:
Apply for Monitoring of investigation
Under 156(3) the magistrate has the power to montor the probe as delay in lodging fir infringes the right of accused as well as victims.
In Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja and another, 2003(3) RCR(Criminal) 556 : 2004(1) Apex Criminal 325 : 2003(6) SCC 195 (vide para 13), it has been observed by this Court that a Magistrate cannot interfere with the investigation by the police. However, in our opinion, the ratio of this decision would only apply when a proper investigation is being done by the police. If the Magistrate on an application under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code is satisfied that proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station, he can certainly direct the officer in charge of the police station to make a proper investigation and can further monitor the same (though he should not himself investigate).
It may be further mentioned that in view of Section 36 Criminal Procedure Code if a person is aggrieved that a proper investigation has not been made by the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station, such aggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of Police or other police officer superior in rank to the officer-in-charge of the police station and such superior officer can, if he so wishes, do the investigation vide CBI v. State of Rajasthan and another, 2001(1) RCR(Criminal) 574 : 2001(3) SCC 333 (vide para 11), R.P. Kapur v. S.P. Singh, AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1117 etc. Also, the State Government is competent to direct the Inspector General, Vigilance to take over the investigation of a cognizable offence registered at a police station vide State of Bihar v. A.C. Saldanna (supra).”
These are the legal solutions to avoid harassment by police officials..
There is a big confusion among people regarding ground on which the divorce can be filed in court when wife or husband has extra martial affair.
There are two grounds on which the situation can be address one is Adultery and other is cruelty.
Now depending on the evidence the above question can be answered.
Now on the ground of adultery the evidence required is bit strong and her are some case laws
Divorce on Adultery
Under the Hindu Marraige Act, 1955 adultery word is not used in the Section 13 1(i) of the HMA 1955
13. Divorce- (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of the Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party- (i) has, after the solemnization of the marriage had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse;
Divorce on Adultery
Now How to prove Adultery in Indian Courts?
The courts in India puts heavy burden on the person who is saying that his estranged spouse and invoked the provision of section 13 1(i) of the HMA 1955. Anything short may come under the crueltyground and petition of divorce can be dismissed, therefore it very important to consider whether constitute adultery or not.
Though direct evidence of adultery is rarely adduced but largely the evidence is circumstantial.
What are the facts that can prove adultery?
Since circumstantial evidence is the basis of proving adultery, the circumstance like wife and her paramour lived in a Hotel for 1 night and no explanation is given by the wife to this effect then adultery is presumed for this entry in Hotel register, CCTV footage with certificate under section 65B of IT act. It is important to make paramour also a party to the suit though no decree can be sought against the paramour. it is important the evidence of witnesses in are of equal weight age like A Husband brings his girlfriend to house in absence of wife and take her into bedroom. the witnesses can be grown up children, neighbors, maid etc. These are the circumstances where adultery can be presumed.
But a mere suspicion that wife was not home whole night is not enough to prove adultery. There should be voluntary sexual intercourse and if husband tries to create a situation wherein a wife is left alone with male person not his husband under such circumstances it is not adultery. A rape on wife is not adultery.
Even if the paramour of the wife writes filthy letter that too also does not come into an ambit of adultery. what adultery is in the eyes of a reasonable man? that circumstances are such that a reasonable man would think its adultery. like wife is living with paramour for more than 7 months . Another thing is merely having flirtatious conversation with a person not his/her husband/wife does not mean adultery, though it can come under mental cruelty. Wife conceiving a child and husband was away for 365 days is a conclusive proof.
Conclusion
The ingredients for proving adultery are like the facts in which the intimacy is such that in the eyes of the reasonable man, such intimacy is there, credible evidence needs to be produced before the court to prove adultery merely on the basis of whims fancies suspicion the same cannot be proved. The court also put the heavy burden of proof on the person alleging. Divorce on adultery is difficult.
In case of Extra Martial affair
In the case of extra martial affair the burden of proof is not that strong the main difference is here you do not have to show physical intimacy proof.
In H Vs. W it is held that the trial court had made a mistake in assesment with regards to evidence the petitioner had infact filed the divorce on the ground of cruelty and not adultery and evidence is different. The court admitted greeting cards and other material like letter and granted divorce on ground of cruelty. Now this judgement is not available online I am publishing extract.
From the evidence adduced on behalf of the respective parties it is quite clear, as observed by the learned trial Court, that the appellant was not leading an unblemished life. Even if the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 is treated with circumspection, there is no reason to disbelieve P.W.4, an elderly lady, who quite candidly stated that at the time of her oral testimony she had no sympathy for her daughter-in-law. She too deposed of how Burki Saha’s mother and sister came to her house and threatened her and other members of her family about the appellant’s relationship with Burki Sana which compelled them to shift to the respondent’s unfinished flat at Manicktala. She also stated that even after the family shifted to Manicktala from Paikpara, the appellant did not change her ways and continued to roam outside the house.
57. The evidence of P.W.4 completely supports the case of the respondent, and, on the other hand, it is highly significant that none of the appellant’s family members came to depose or support the appellant’s case. Such conduct is hardly expected from the family members of an Individual whose married life was at stake in the suit, unless they had wilfully chosen to stay aloof which casts a shadow over the simplistic defence taken on behalf of the appellant that the respondent had filed the suit for divorce as she was unable to satisfy his sexual appetite after her repeated operations, including removal of her uterus, which left her in continuous pain.
58. The general view adopted by the Supreme Court and the High Courts is that cruelty against a spouse must be specifically pleaded and such acts of cruelty should be discernible from the evidence adduced, the standard of proof being of a lesser degree than a criminal trial.
59. In our view, the preponderance of events which appears from the evidence adduced by the parties clearly supports the case of mental cruelty made on behalf of the respondent husband who appears to have been compelled to file the suit for divorce after a series of incidents where the marital fidelity of the appellant came to be questioned and the marital ties came under severe strain. In our view, the circumstances were sufficient to establish mental cruelty suffered by the respondent on account of the actions of the appellant.
As far as the ground of cruelty urged by the husband is concerned, the Family Court has referred to the evidence adduced and found that maintaining a relationship with another person during the subsistence of the marriage with the husband has caused mental cruelty to the husband. In so far as this case is concerned, Exts.A2 and A3 and the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 proved the subsistence of an illicit relationship between the wife and the 2nd respondent or else she would not have made calls to him for long durations and at odd hours and he would not have come to know the details of the sexual acts between the husband and the wife.
14. As far as the case of selfishness of the husband pleaded by the wife is concerned, his evidence amply demonstrated his concern for the wife and children. As far as the allegation that after obtaining lakhs and lakhs of rupees, husband has now fabricated a case for getting divorce is concerned, there again, the evidence of wife herself disproves this case. She has admitted before the Family Court that the husband used to send money to her account in SBI, Kannur from which she and her father used to withdraw substantial amounts. The husband had deposited Rs.3,00,000/- in the Post Office, Pazhayangadi in her name from which she was getting Rs.3,000/- per month. She also admitted that in Madayi Co-operative Bank, there is a Fixed Deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- in her name made by the husband. She has also admitted that her children’s birthday used to be celebrated in an extravagant manner. She has confessed that her mother-in-law and the sister-in-law were cordial to her. Her evidence also showed that the husband had given her 14 sovereigns of gold and that the children were given chains weighing 1 sovereigns each at the time of their birthday. This therefore showed that the husband was a generous man and a loving and affectionate father.
15. It is true that the counsel for the wife referred to the observations of the Family Court that “from a totality of the evidence of RW1, it can be seen that it was PW1 who has foisted such allegations against her in order to have a divorce”. He also referred to the sentence “a totality of the evidence of RWs 1 and 2 proved that they have no acquaintance with the 2nd respondent.”
16. According to him, in view of these findings, the Family Court could not have granted any relief to the husband. However, if these findings are read in the context in which these observations are made, it can very well be seen that all that the Family Court was trying to convey was that this was the version of RWs 1 and 2 and were not findings arrived at by the Family Court.
17. This is a case where mental cruelty is pleaded and found by the Family Court. Concept of mental cruelty and the standard of proof that is required has come up for consideration of the Apex Court in Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur (2005(1) KLT 26) and in para 10 to 13 of the judgment, the Apex Court has held thus;
10. The expression “cruelty” has not been defined in the Act. Cruelty can be physical or mental. Cruelty which is aground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as willful and unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The question of mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they live. Cruelly, as noted above, includes mental cruelly, which falls within the purview of a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of his spouse same is established and/or an inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty. In delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the case. The concept, a proof beyond the shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters and certainly not to matters of such delicate personal relationship as those of husband and wife. Therefore, one has to see what are the probabilities in a case and legal cruelty has to be found out, not merely as a matter of fact, but as the effect on the mind of the complainant spouse because of the acts or omissions of the other. Cruelty may be physical or corporeal or may be mental. In physical cruelty, there can be tangible and direct evidence, but in the case of mental cruelty there may not at the same time be direct evidence. In cases where there is no direct evidence, Courts are required to probe into the mental process and mental effect of incidents that are brought out in evidence. It is in this view that one has to consider the evidence in matrimonial disputes.
11. The expression Rs.cruelty’ has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. Cruelty is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other.
The cruelty may be menial or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, the Court will have no problem in determining it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the problem presents difficulties. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of cruel treatment, second the impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse, whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. However, there may be a case where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted {See Sobh Rani v. Madhukar Reddi (AIR 1988 SC 121)).
12. To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be “grave and weighty” so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse, It must be something more serious than “ordinary wear and tear of married life”. The conduct, taking into consideration the circumstances and background has to be examined to reach the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law. Conduct has to be considered, as noted above, in the background of several factors such as social status of parties, their education, physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions. It is difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give exhaustive description of the circumstances, which would constitute cruelty. It must be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce. Physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty and a consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may well constitute cruelty within the meaning of S. 10 of the Act. Mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive language leading to constant disturbance of mental peace of the other party.
13. The Court dealing with the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty has to bear in mind that the problems before it are those of human beings and the psychological changes in a spouse’s conduct have to be borne in mind before disposing of the petition for divorce. However, insignificant or trifling, such conduct may cause pain in the mind of another. But before the conduct can be called cruelty, it must touch a certain pitch of severity. It is for the Court to weigh the gravity
Conclusion-: In Adultery if you have an absolute proof of physical intimacy then only it is the best way to go on this ground otherwise do not do any mistake to go on ground of adultery if there is only an affair.
Default of 125 Cr PC order is viewed seriously by the courts and the amount of coercive action in case of default varies from case to case.
Under section 125(4) the court can take coercive action for enforcing execution of the maintenance order.
The maintenance order can be enforced in two ways by warrant of attachment wherein the assets of the petitioner are attached and amount of arrears are recovered and another way is by warrant of arrest where real jail time the husband has to suffer in case of default.
Now how much jail time he has to go?
The answer to this is maximum of 30 days per application
It therefore appears that the maximum period for which a person against whom the realisation of arrears of maintenance amount is due, has been taken into custody can be for a period of one month and not beyond that and it can be less than one month if the payment is made prior to the completion of one month in custody. In the case of “Laljee Yadav” (supra) while considering Sub-section 3 of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., it has been held as follows:
31. “Here, we may like to point out another aspect of the matter. As seen above, the maintenance is to be fixed on monthly basis. The sentence has, accordingly, been limited to a month maximum for each breach. Thus, as noticed by the Apex Court in the abovereferred to cases, there has to be separate sentencing upon separate and fresh application after considering the matter for each month or part thereof for which maintenance remains unpaid. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, can there be a continuous mechanical remand as in the present case.”
There are instances where the wife leaves the house and do police complaint on account of dowry demand and harassment and she also files 125 CrPC for claim of maintenance.
In a Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court it was decided that when wife is alleging cruelty as a ground for living separately and claiming maintenance, then she has to show that the evidence related to cruelty and dowry demand and when there is no such evidence the maintenance can be denied in such cases.
The only police report brought on record is one lodged after the respondent left her matrimonial home. We do not attach much importance to this report. There is no contemporaneous document in the form of letters which may have been written by the respondent to her friends or relatives mentioning about her being subjected to torture or harassment by the appellant. The respondent being an educated lady, it is difficult to believe that she would not have written letters to her friends and relatives during the twelve years that she lived with the appellant as husband and wife. Apart from her mother, the respondent has produced no evidence of prove that she was tortured and harassed by the appellant.
No without any reason the wife leaves you and after 2 years of efforts to call her back she do not join you thereafter you file a divorce on the grounds of desertion.
Divorce on the ground of desertion is granted when the wife without any reasonable cause leave the matrimonial home and do not come back.
One of the condition of 125 Crpc also is this that the without any sufficient cause wife leaves you then she is not entitled to get maintenance.
Here is the judgement of Hon’ble supreme court which says
Under this provision, a wife is not entitled to any Maintenance Allowance from her husband if she is living in adultery or if she has refused to live with her husband without any sufficient reason or if they are living separately by mutual consent. Thus, all the circumstances contemplated by Sub-section (4) of Section 125 Cr. P.C. presuppose the existence of matri- monial relations. The provision would be applicable where the marriage between the parties subsists and not where it has come to an end. Taking the three circumstances individually, it will be noticed that the first circum-stance on account of which a wife is not entitled to claim Maintenance Allowance from her husband is that she is living in adultery. Now, adultery is the sexual intercourse of two persons, either of whom is married to a third person. This clearly supposes the subsistence of marriage between the husband and wife and if during the subsistence of marriage, the wife lives in adultery, she cannot claim Maintenance Allowance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The second ground on which she would not be entitled to Maintenance Allowance is the ground of her refusal to live with her husband without any sufficient reason. This also presupposes the subsistence of marital relations between the parties. If the marriage subsists, the wife is under a legal and moral obligation to live with her husband and to fulfil the marital obligations. She cannot, without any sufficient reason, refuse to live with her husband. “Sufficient reasons” have been interpreted differently by the High Courts having regard to the facts of indivisual cases. We are not required to go into that question in the present case as admittedly the marriage between the parties came to an end on account of a decree for divorce having been passed by the Family Court. Existence of sufficient cause on the basis of which the respondent could legitimately refuse to live with the petitioner is not relevant for the present case. In this situation, the only question which survives for consideration is whether a wife against whom a decree for divorce has been passed on account of her deserting the husband can claim Maintenance Allowance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. and how far can the plea of desertion be treated to be an effective plea in support of the husband’s refusal to pay her the Maintenance Allowance.
Admittedly, in the instant case, the respondent is a divorced wife. The marriage ties between the parties do not subsist. The decree for divorce was passed on 15th of July, 1995 and since then, she is under no obligation to live with the petitioner. But though the marital relations came to an end by the divorce granted by the Family Court under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the respondent continues to be “wife” within the meaning of Section 125 Cr.P.C. on account of Explanation (b) to Sub-section (1) which provides as under :-
“Explanation. – For the purposes of this Chapter –
(a) ………………………………………………………….
(b) “wife” includes woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried.”
On account of the Explanation quoted above, a woman who has been divorced by her husband on account of a decree passed by the Family Court under the Hindu Marriage Act, continues to enjoy the status of a wife for the limited purpose of claiming Maintenance Allowance from her ex-husband. This Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Others, AIR (1978) SC 1807, observed as under :-
“9. This provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Art. 39. We have no doubt that, sections of statutes calling for construction by courts are not petrified print but vibrant words with social functions to fulfil. The brooding presence of the constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed, it is possible to be selective in picking out that interpretation out of two alternatives which advances the cause-the cause of the derelicts.”
Claim for maintenance under the first part of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is based on the subsistence of marriage while claim for maintenance of a divorced wife is based on the foundation provided by Explanation (b) to Sub-section (1) of Section 125 Cr. P.C. If the divorced wife is unable to maintain herself and if she has not remarried, she will be entitled to Maintenance Allowance. The Calcutta High Court had an occasion to consider an identical situation where the husband had obtained divorce on the ground of desertion by wife but she was held entitled to Maintenance Allowance as a divorced wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the fact that she had deserted her husband and on that basis a decree for divorce was passed against her was not treated as a bar to her claim for maintenance as a divorced wife. See : Sukumar Dhibar v. Smt. Anjali Dasi, (1983) Crl. L.J. 36. The Allahabad High Court also, in the instant case, has taken a similar view. We approve these decisions as they represent the correct legal position.
In Divorce cases allegations and counter allegations are quite common if counter allegations are scandalous then surely you will get divorce
In Malar Vijy Vs. Kanthan and another13Wherein it has been observed as follows; ―22. In Manisha Sandeep Gade v. Sandeep Vinayak Gade14 a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, while considering the question as to whether the unsubstantiated and unproved allegation of adultery leveled against the husband by the wife would amount to mental cruelty, has held that it will amount to mental cruelty. It was a case where the husband has sought for divorce on the ground of cruelty and while defending the petition, the wife in her written statement, apart from defending her and refuting the allegations made against her, had made several allegations against her husband and one such allegation was that he had illicit relationship with one Leena, wife of Vivek and in fact he wanted to marry her. While considering the legal effect of such an allegation, the Division Bench has held as follows:- “30. What we have to note is that when one party to the petition has sought divorce on some ground and the respondent to that petition does not merely defend it to get it defeated, but makes further serious allegations against the petitioner, it becomes a clear step towards the dissolution of the marriage. In the present matter, the petitioner has approached the Court seeking dissolution of his marriage. It is his case that there is a failure of the marriage and he seeks to point it out by
invoking a ground available under the law. At that point of time, if the respondent makes a counter allegation in the written statement, that by itself shows a prima facie failure of the marriage. ….
…. In a matrimonial matter, one cannot apply the standard of stricter evidence. Nothing prevented her from establishing her allegations. The respondent could not have established the negative by leading any further evidence that the allegations made by the wife were false. The appellant had made the allegations. The burden was on her. She had failed to prove those allegations. Once she fails to prove those allegations and if those allegations are not in consonance with matrimonial relationship, and the husband complains that they have caused him agony, the inference that they constitute cruelty has to follow.
In the circumstances we are satisfied that the learned Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that the allegations made by the appellant wife were baseless and false and constituted a cruelty. He was, therefore, right in granting the decree of divorce on that ground. …”
In Kiran Mandal v. Mohini Mandal15 a Division Bench of that Court, has held as follows:- “14. … She made false allegations against her husband that he had illicit relations with his brother’s wife. These false allegations did have an injurious effect on the husband.
15 AIR 1989 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 310 Page 30 of 39
Cruelty within the meaning of S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act is not confined to physical violence but includes mental torture caused by one spouse to the other. The wife had made it insufferable for the husband to live with her. Any man with reasonable self respect and power of endurance will find it difficult to live with a taunting wife, when such taunts are in fact insult and indignities. Human nature being what it is, a reasonable man’s reaction to the conduct of the offending spouse is the test and unending accusations and imputations can cause more pain and misery than physical beating. ….”
In Smt. Chanderkala Trivedi v. Dr. S.P.Trivedi16 , the husband sued for divorce on the ground of cruelty by wife. The wife filed a written statement wherein she attributed adultery to the husband. In reply thereto the husband put forward another allegation against the wife that she was having undesirable association with young boys. Considering the mutual allegations, His Lordship, R.M.Sahai, J., speaking for Division Bench, observed: “Whether the allegation of the husband that she was in the habit of associating with young boys and the findings recorded by the three Courts are correct or not but what is certain is that once such allegations are made by the husband and wife as have been made in this case then it is obvious that the marriage of the two cannot in any
16 1993 (3) Scale 541 Page 31 of 39 circumstance be continued any further. The marriage appears to be practically dead as from cruelty alleged by the husband it has turned out to be at least intimacy of the husband with a lady doctor and unbecoming conduct of a Hindu wife.”
In the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, if the facts of the present case are considered, it could be seen that when serious allegations of adultery is made by the wife against the husband and the same stands unsubstantiated that will definitely amount to mental cruelty as far as the husband is concerned. The unfounded allegations made by the wife against her husband by itself shows the prima facie failure of the marriage.
As far as the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant that unless and until the 1st respondent substantiates his allegations contained in the petition, he is not entitled for decree for divorce and merely on the ground that when the wife has made serious allegations, he is not entitled to get decree is concerned, it has to be pointed out that making unsubstantiated allegations about the character of the husband and accusing him of illicit intimacy would itself amount to mental cruelty. Therefore, the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be countenanced when the very allegations made against the 1st respondent will amount to mental cruelty.
Under the above circumstances, it is immaterial that the 1st respondent should establish the allegations of cruelty pleaded in the petition. Therefore, the said contention of the learned counsel is rejected. Page 32 of 39
We do not find any other valid reason to interfere with the reasoning of the Court below. Hence the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.‖ The above position is reiterated in a recent Judgement of the Division Bench of Honourable High Court of Madras in R. Frederick Vs. H. Malini17 , wherein it has been held as follows: ―19. Even though mental cruelty cannot be defined preciously, yet, it can be inferred on the basis of the attendant facts and circumstances of the case. In this context, useful reference could be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A.Deepa18, wherein it was held as follows: ―10. Cruelty can never be defined with exactitude. What is cruelty, will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, from the facts narrated above, it is apparent that the wife made reckless, defamatory and false accusations against her husband, his Family Members and colleagues, which would definitely have the effect of lowering his reputation in the eyes of his peers. Mere filing of complaints is not cruelty, if there are justifiable reasons to file the complaints. Merely because no action is taken on the complaint or after trial the Accused is acquitted may not be a grounds to treat such accusations of the wife as cruelty within the meaning of the Hindu Marriage Act. However, if it is found that the allegations are patently false, then there can be no manner of doubt that the said conduct of a spouse, leveling false accusations against the other spouse would be an act of cruelty……‖
Thus, the plea of Mental Cruelty cannot be precisely defined, yet, making unfounded, indecent, defamatory allegations against the spouse
or his or her relatives which may have adverse impact on the business prospect or the job of the spouse would itself amount to cruelty. In the present case, the respondent has harped upon by contending that the Appellant led an adulterous life with one Shubha, Bharathi and other women, but such allegations are largely not substantiated either by examining the aforesaid persons or by any other proof to show that the Appellant was in fact having illicit intimacy with them. Further, it was proved from the oral evidence as well as pleadings of the respondent that she has informed the sister, brother and mother of the Appellant as though the Appellant was living an adulterous relationship with other woman. When the respondent, without any substance, has informed the sister, brother and mother of the Appellant as though the Appellant is leading an adulterous life, definitely, it would be difficult, rather the Appellant would be ashamed, to even interact or meet his own sister, brother and mother in the wake of such scandalous and disparaging remarks made against him by the Respondent. Moreover, we are also of the opinion that if a suspicious nature of one of the spouse doubting the fidelity of the husband or wife as the case may be, becomes a perennial feature without any basis, leading to discord in the matrimonial life, it is only a reflection of cruelty inflicted by one of the spouse against the other. In such circumstances, we feel that the accusations made by the Respondent against the Appellant, which remain largely unsubstantiated, with respect to adulterous living, would have definitely caused him a scar, mental disturbance and mental cruelty to him. Therefore, we hold that the Appellant has proved that he was inflicted with and subjected to matrimonial cruelty at the hands of the Respondent.‖ Hence a Lawyer should be very cautious while making the cross examination and shall ensure that the allegations leveled against the other spouse should not become fatal to his own case.
