![Wife's Love And Affection For Someone Is Not Adultery, Says High Court](https://assets.timelinedaily.com/j/1203x902/2025/02/judge-1587300_1280-1200x900.jpg)
Wife's Love And Affection For Someone Is Not Adultery, Says Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a wife’s emotional involvement with another man does not constitute adultery unless it involves a physical relationship. This means that husbands cannot deny maintenance to their wives solely based on emotional infidelity.
This was ruled by Justice GS Ahluwalia, stating that adultery requires sexual intercourse. This ruling came in response to a man’s petition, who claimed his wife wasn’t entitled to maintenance since she was emotionally involved with another man, as reported by Bar and Bench. However, the court dismissed his petition, stating that emotional involvement alone does not constitute adultery.
The High Court ruled that having love and affection for someone else without physical intimacy isn’t enough to prove adultery, stating “adultery means sexual intercourse”, as quoted by Bar and Bench, dated January 17, 2025.
Also, read| Unnatural Sex With Wife, Even Without Consent, Is Not Punishable: Chhattisgarh High Court
The husband argued that his wife was already receiving Rs 4,000 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and that awarding an additional Rs 4,000 under Section 125 of the CrPC was excessive. However, the court found no merit in this argument.
The court scrutinised the husband’s salary certificate, which lacked critical details such as the place and date of issuance. It also rejected the husband’s claim that his wife was earning income from a beauty parlour due to lack of evidence.
Also, read| Prisoners Without Trial For Years, Most From Marginalised Communities: Report
The court referenced two laws, Section 144(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), stating that a wife can only be denied maintenance if proven to be living in adultery. It emphasised that allegations of adultery require evidence of a physical relationship.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the husband’s petition, stating that the family court had not committed any material errors by granting interim maintenance.