The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a wife's emotional attachment or affection for someone other than her husband does not constitute adultery unless it involves a physical relationship. The verdict, delivered by Justice GS Ahluwalia, clarified that adultery, by its legal definition, requires sexual intercourse, as reported by Bar and Bench.
The ruling came in response to a revision petition filed by a husband challenging a family court’s decision. The petitioner argued that his wife was not entitled to maintenance because she was in love with another man. However, the court dismissed this contention, reaffirming that mere emotional involvement does not amount to adultery. It further emphasised that allegations of adultery must be substantiated with evidence of a physical relationship for them to hold legal weight.
"Adultery necessarily means sexual intercourse. Even if a wife has love and affection towards someone else without engaging in physical relations, that alone is not sufficient to conclude that she is living in adultery," the court stated in its order dated January 17.
The High Court referred to Section 144(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), both of which specify that a wife can only be denied maintenance if she is proven to be living in adultery. The husband's claim was deemed baseless without concrete proof of a physical relationship.
The petitioner also contended that he was already paying his wife Rs 4,000 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and that granting an additional Rs 4,000 under Section 125 of the CrPC was excessive. He cited financial constraints, claiming that he worked as a ward boy earning only Rs 8,000 per month. However, the court found his argument unconvincing and upheld the family court’s decision.
Upon reviewing the husband's salary certificate, the court noted several discrepancies. It pointed out that the certificate issued by the hospital where he worked lacked key details such as the place and date of issuance, making its authenticity questionable.
Additionally, the husband alleged that his wife was running a beauty parlour and had an independent income. However, the court rejected this claim, observing that he had failed to produce any documentary evidence proving that she owned or rented a shop for such a business.
In its final ruling, the High Court dismissed the husband's petition, concluding that the family court had not committed any material illegality by awarding interim maintenance. The judgment reinforces the legal distinction between emotional and physical relationships in cases of adultery and highlights the necessity of credible evidence when making such allegations in marital disputes.
