Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In a recent order of Kerala HC the court took reiterated a decision laid down in a 1999 judgment of Sandha V. Narayanan which held that “a single act of un-chastity or a few lapses of virtue will not disentitle a wife from claiming maintenance from her husband” under Sec.125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Through the above order HC sets aside the order of a family court which had dismissed the plea of a woman seeking maintenance on the ground that she was living in adultery.
Matter in Family Court: The HC through its order directed the Family Court to consider the applicability of the dictum in Sandha v. Narayanan [1999(1) KLT 688] wherein it was held that in order to constitute the "act of living in adultery" there should be a continuous course of conduct or living in the State of quasi-permanent union with the adulterer. The wife before the family Court had contended that there has been no ocular or documentary evidence adduced by the husband to prove such adultery. The wife argued that husband has referred to a single instance of unchastity or lapse.
The Single judge bench of Justice Alexander Thomas observed that “effect of dictum laid down in various cases as in Sandha v. Narayanan [1999(1) KLT 688] that in order to constitute the ‘act of living in adultery’ there should be a continuous course of conduct or living in the State of quasi-permanent union with the adulterer and that a single act of unchastity or a few lapses of virtue will not disentitle a wife from claiming maintenance from her husband…………In the light of these aspects, this Court is of the considered opinion that the said crucial aspects has not been properly considered and adverted to by the learned Family Court.”
86540
103860
630
114
59824