Denial Of Spousal Maintenance Due To Adultery In Marital Dissolution - An Indian Legal Perspective
Author: LawSphereX
Category: Family & Personal Law
Published:
Updated:
DENIAL OF SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE DUE TO
ADULTERY IN MARITAL DISSOLUTION: AN INDIAN
LEGAL PERSPECTIVE
Ishitha G Urs, BBA LLB, Ramaiah College of Law, Bangaluru, Karnataka, India Prof. Dr. Kiran Kumar Thoti, Professor & Dean: Management Studies, Vidya Vikas Education Trust, Vidya Vikas Institute of Engineering and Technology, Mysuru, Karnataka, India
ORCID: 0000-0002-6678-9425
ABSTRACT
This article critically examines the consequences of adultery on entitlement to maintenance in the context in matters of marital dissolution under Indian law. Adultery was ceased to be a criminal offence with the application of Section 497 of the IPC, but after the change in statutes, we see that it is no longer a criminal offence. Now, it only falls under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and Section 144 of BNSS, 2023 which clearly deals with civil matrimonial proceedings particularly affecting the rights of alimony and maintenance. This article mainly emphasis on judicial precedents that establish that a spouse particularly the wife, who indulges in adultery during or after the marriage, can be detained from getting maintenance from the spouse.
It further examines the intricacies of the law where maintenance claims are affected by moral conduct of the spouse and how the court will balance this keeping in mind the obligations to the evolving societal values and gender justice. The article also discusses on the contemporary legal interpretations that help to differentiate between moral lapses and continuous adulterous conduct, which further emphasizes the need for clear and substantive proof to deny the allegations of adultery and the need for maintenance. It also focuses on the upcoming debates on restructuring maintenance laws to ensure there is gender equality and the protection of vulnerable parties without any moral misconduct. This comprehensive study contributes to a nuanced understanding of the link between adultery and maintenance rights in Indian matrimonial matters.
Keywords: Adultery, Maintenance, Alimony, Gender equality, Justice
1. INTRODUCTION
The legal foundation of maintenance in India under the statutes represents a crucial social justice method designed to protect the financial welfare of spouses and their dependents, especially women, during the separation or the conclusion of the marriage. The principle of the separation and dissolution of marriage should not be converted to destitution for the economically weaker spouse. However, when we look at the limits to the right to maintenance, particularly conferring to the moral conduct of spouses, adultery is a significant disqualifying factor. When we look at the term ‘adultery’ in a historical manner, it comes under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), after which it came through a transformative legal journey culminating in its omission by the Supreme Court of India in 2018, in the landmark judgment of Joseph Shine v. Union of India 1.
The court in this case struck down the archaic, gender discriminatory provision that criminalized consensual extramarital relations by men with married women, holding it violative under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, right to equality. While we see that it was decriminalized under the IPC, the civil-related matters to adultery in the family law proceedings, particularly matters involving maintenance, alimony, and divorce, have a continued entrenched period. [NANDINI A KHAANA, “ADULTERY AND INDIAN LAW: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS” JOURNAL OF FAMILY LAW, 2019].
When we look at the maintenance provisions under the Indian Law, they are scattered across various legislations such as the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956; the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; the Special Marriage Act, 1954; and mainly focusing on Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023. Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023, particularly focuses on a summary and effective remedy for wives, children, and parents who are in financial crisis and are unable to maintain themselves. They are all beneficial legislation, aimed at preventing destitution and vagrancy, often interpreted liberally in the spouse who has claimed maintenance. [AVTAR SINGH, “LAW OF MAINTENANCE,” EASTERN BOOK COMPANY, 16TH ED, 2021].
But, when we look at the Section thoroughly, we see that there are certain specific exceptions, such as sub-section 4 of Section 144 states that a wife will not be entitled to allowance for the maintenance and expenses of proceeding, if “she is living in adultery” or “does not wish to stay with the husband” or “living separately through mutual consent”. This provision brings a critical point that the intent of the law, in terms of this provision, was to bring a balance in the
1 (2018) 10 SCC 1
social justice system with moral values in matrimonial relations. The judicial interpretation of the term “living in adultery” has been a key to determining whether or not maintenance can be legally denied. Courts have held that mere commission of a solitary act of adultery does not disentitle the spouse; rather, it must be a prolonged and continuous relationship for the disqualification from the maintenance rights. [GIRABEN
SANDIPBHAI JOTANGIYA V. STATE OF GUJARAT (2005) 3 GLR 45, MADHYA
PRADESH HC RUILING, 2024]. In a recent judgment, we see that Justice Prem Narayan Singh noted that the statement “a stray act or two of adultery does not amount to living in adultery”2 does not disentitle the wife from maintenance; there must be a difference between the isolated acts and continuous conduct. The principle was also seen in the Madras High Court in the judgement of KASTURI V. RAMASWAMY (1979), where the court observed that “living in adultery” directly means adulterous conduct, not incidental lapses. Similarly, the Orissa High Court established that the burden of proof mainly stands on the husband to establish the continuous adulterous relationship, so as to deny maintenance to be given to the wife. [ADAB SINGH KAPOOR, LIVING IN ADULTERY – NOT A BAR TO SEEK
MAINTENANCE]
The Supreme Court of India, through several judgments, has reiterated that divorced wives may still claim maintenance, under Section 144 of the BNSS, only if they are unable to maintain themselves. But these are exposed to certain exceptions that include adultery [ROHTASH SINGH V. RAMENDRI (2000) 3 SCC 180]3. In the mentioned case, we see that the Court has ruled that divorce is a process through which the marital relationship comes to an end, but the obligation to provide maintenance to the wife will stay, until proven that she was living in adultery or refuses to live with her husband without any proper reason. The Court stated that the allegations of adultery must be substantiated with clear and convincing evidence, as maintenance is a provision given by the government, keeping in mind the purpose of social justice, so as to provide for the economic security of the vulnerable spouse.
The mere allegation or suspension of the wife being involved in adultery will not disentitle the wife from maintenance. This approach brings a judicious balance between the social protection of women 2 https://lawbeat. in/news-updates/madhya-pradesh-hc-stray-act-or-two-adultery-doesnt-disentitle-wife-claimingmaintenance-husband-mp-high
3 https://jsrohilla.in/rohtash-singh-vs-ramendri-smt-ors-can-a-divorced-wife-claim-maintenance/
and discouraging immorality within marital relations. [KAUR V. KAUR (2022) 4 SCC 123 &
AVINASH KUMAR V. STATE OF UP (2021) 7 SCC 342]
Adultery has played a significant role as the disqualifier for the maintenance rights, which has been brought by academicians and feminist critics, who emphasize the need for gender -neutral and equitable legal backup. The scholars argue that the maintenance laws, which protect women, sometimes bring enforcement on the traditional moral policing, that disproportionately impacts women, particularly the divorced wives [DR. RUCHA JOSHI, “MAINTENANCE
LAWS AND GENDER JUSTICE IN INDIA” INDIAN JOURNAL OF GENDER STUDIES,
2023]. We will further look into the decriminalization of adultery that showcases a shift towards a more approachable and respectful adult autonomy, but the persistence of adultery as the ground for denial of maintenance creates a legal paradox. Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023, in simple terms, defines ‘living in adultery’ as the basis for denying maintenance despite criminal law liberalization4, which presents tension between morality and rights-based maintenance jurisprudence. [JAGJOT SINGH ARORA, CONTEMPORARY ANALYSIS OF DIVORCE
AND MAINTENANCE LAWS IN MODERN INDIA] [NANDINI SHARMA “ADULTERY
AND MAINTENANCE: CONFLICTING PARADIGMS” LAW & SOCIETY REVIEW,
2024].
2. LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING MAINTENANCE IN INDIA
In India, the maintenance laws are a complex aspect that reflects the country’s religious diversity and civil traditions. It primarily focuses on ensuring that there is economic support given to the vulnerable family members who are unable to maintain themselves, mainly the wives, children, and parents. Certain key legislations govern the maintenance rights, which are Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023 provides a secular aspect to the maintenance rights; it states that wives are entitled to get maintenance, and it further acts as a swift relief and helps to prevent destitution and vagrancy. The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, governs the maintenance obligations that are mainly for the Hindu marriages and adoption processes.
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, contains the procedures regarding maintenance that need to be followed during separation and after the divorce among Hindu couples. The Special Marriage Act, 1954, mainly addresses the issues that are dealt with in civil marriages that may cross
4 https://www.theedulaw.in/content/judgements/105/Maintenance-Denied:-Adultery-as-Absolute-
Disqualification-Even-Post-Divorce
religious boundaries. The law incorporates a more protective intention to ensure that there is financial support, but also restricts it with moral dimensions. Specifically, Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023, excludes the maintenance rights for wives who are found living in adultery, reflecting a moralistic view within a liberal statute.5 As Dr. Rucha Joshi, [DR. RUCHA JOSHI,
“MAINTENANCE LAWS AND GENDER JUSTICE IN INDIA” INDIAN JOURNAL OF
GENDER STUDIES, 2023] clearly noted that the law insists that economic support will be conditioned with moral conduct, exemplifying the legal duality. The Supreme Court in this matter has explicitly clarified the liberal and remedial nature of Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023, which emphasizes the immediate adjudication of the case, so as to avoid any starvation and destitution. The Court has also protected the application of the legal aspect against technical denials, so as to extend the maintenance rights even in complex marital relations. They are seen in cases such as Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014), where the Court held that if there is a second wife, who does not have knowledge of the subsisting first marriage, then under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023, the second wife can claim maintenance, and she is treated as his legal wife6. In Rajnesh v.
Neha (2020), the Supreme Court mandated the lower courts to consider an interim maintenance to be given to the wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act during the maintenance proceedings, streamlining protective remedies under Section 144 of the BNSS, 20237. The Gujarat High Court had clarified that maintenance given under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023, is independent of civil divorces and personal law nuances as seen in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat (2005). The maintenance rights under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, apply only to Hindus and related communities, with the conditions described around chastity, conversion, and remarriage. The secular BNSS provisions apply universally to all citizens of the country, regardless of their religion, and provide broader accessibility. Section
144 of the BNSS, 2023 was mostly curated as a social justice tool, reducing the lengthy civil
procedures and reducing the economic dependence of the wives on their husbands or the male members of the family.8 However, when the moral caveat comes forward with the exclusion of adultery, it raises critical debates on gender justice, reflecting the societal norms against the emerging feminist critiques who advocate for the unconditional economic support irrespective of the moral judgments.
5 https://blog.ipleaders.in/maintenance-crpc-personal-laws-comparative-study/
6 https://www.myadvo.in/blog/laws-relating-to-maintenance-in-india/
7 https://www.lawweb.in/2023/12/what-is-distinction-between-grant-of.html
8 https://www.ijllr.com/post/explaining-the-concept-of-maintenance-according-to-section-125-of-crpc
3. JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS OF “LIVING IN ADULTERY”
The Indian courts have rigorously interpreted the phrase “living in adultery” under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023, as the grounds for the maintenance rights of wives. The provision draws a vital distinction between one or two acts of adultery and the sustained or continuous adulterous conduct. This differentiation is the basis for protecting the economically dependent spouses from arbitrary denial of maintenance. The overriding intention of the maintenance laws is social protection, which is aimed at preventing the destitution of wives and children. The court has continuously reiterated that exclusion of maintenance on the ground of adultery requires solid proof of the habitual cohabitation with an extramarital intrigue. This protects the wives against the denial of maintenance on implausible allegations and preserves the main purpose of the maintenance provision.
The Madras High Court had interpreted the term “living in adultery” as equivalent to continuous adulterous behaviour rather than isolated moral lapses or inadequate allegations. The court in 2024 reaffirmed that the necessity for clear and direct evidence for the sustained adulterous relationship before the maintenance is claimed is an important factor for deciding the maintenance rights of the spouse. Recently this year, three high courts have given their view on adultery and its effect on maintenance. The Patna High Court and the Chhattisgarh High Court9 has clearly distinguished between the commission of adultery and the continuous cohabitation in adultery10, stressing upon the fact that for the maintenance claimed to be denied, the clear proof of the continuous adulterous lifestyle is needed as seen in the case of Bulbul Khatoon v. Md. Shamshad (2025) & Resham Lal Dewangan v.
Suman Dewangan (2025). The Delhi High Court had a different approach to this; it stated that the maintenance claim can be denied only if there is adequate and clear evidence that DNA is present, and this was also a bar set for Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023, which is the denial of maintenance to wives. So, we see that the as per the recent rulings, the interpretations of the maintenance claim, if there is an adulterous relationship, depend upon: a) If there are only occasional acts of moral lapses, then it does not amount to the term “living in adultery. ” b) The maintenance laws prioritize the maintenance rights for the wives and emphasize the 9 https://www. scconline. com/blog/post/2025/05/22/divorced-wife-living-in-adultery-disqualified-from-claimingmaintenance-under-s-125-crpc-chhattisgarh-hc/ 10 https://lawbeat.
in/news-updates/wifes-adultery-must-be-continuous-to-deny-maintenance-patna-high-court- 1512551
need for a high evidentiary threshold for husbands who contest that the maintenance claim is denied on the grounds of adultery committed by their wives. The legal scholars and commentators analyse this judicial stance through a balance in the protective emancipatory purpose of maintenance law with the upcoming moral norms embedded in personal law statutes [AVTAR SINGH, 2021]. Even Dr. Rucha Joshi critiques the duality between the uncertainty of the economic protection of the wives, children, and family, and the moral conditionality that the courts navigate through the evidentiary bar. [JOSHI, 2023].
4. MAINTENANCE RIGHTS OF DIVORCED WIVES AND ADULTERY
The Maintenance rights in India are clearly seen to extend beyond the dissolution of the marriage into the post-divorce phase. The evolution reflects the legal system’s approach that, while severing the marital bond, it does not absolve the former husband from the financial obligations, especially if the wife is unable to sustain herself. This principle is inserted in Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023, and was also backed up by other personal laws such as the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023 is a universal secular provision that safeguards wives, including divorced wives who have not remarried, their children, and parents from destitution. The personal laws help in enabling maintenance or alimony to the divorced wives. These were reiterated in cases such as Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri (2000), Kaur v. Kaur (2022) & Avinash Kumar v. State of UP (2021).
The courts are interpreting that divorce is a termination of the conjugal rights but not of the financial responsibility, where the wife is unable to maintain herself. Maintenance is seen as a social justice instrument preventing destitution and upholding the dignity of the spouses. The court enforces the strict proof for the disqualifying behaviours, such as adultery, to avoid the arbitrary denial of maintenance to the spouse. 11 This stance, taken up by the courts, ensures that the vulnerable divorced women are not deprived of economic support based on unproven allegations. The scholars recognize this as an attempt to bring a balance between the traditional notions of marital responsibility and the modern concepts of gender justice and economic rights. We see that maintenance laws have 11 https://www. newindianexpress.
com/nation/2025/Feb/15/adultery-in-modern-indian-law-fromdecriminalisation-to-civil-relevance
transitioned from solely preserving the marital relationship to safeguarding the economic situation of the spouse during the post-separation period, reflecting societal evolution.12
5. SOCIETAL AND DOCTRINAL CRITIQUES
The views of the feminist critiques on the maintenance laws in India, especially the ones that deny the maintenance rights to wives and those divorced women living in adultery, have been recognised and put under significant academic scrutiny, and how those laws often reiterate patriarchal moral policing. The scholars contend that the bridge between the maintenance denial and moral conditions here as adultery, unequally targets women, perpetuating the gender bias that is embedded within the family laws. When we look at the discussion on how maintenance laws have continued to press upon the moral framework on women, especially on divorced wives, this showcases the patriarchal control over the female gender under the mask of financial responsibility.
13 As we have historically and traditionally seen that women, after their marriage, move from their natal home to their marital home, the law’s enforcement on the ‘sexual purity’ of the women is like a condition for the maintenance rights against the husband. This serves as a tool for the control over the women’s body autonomy and their economic survival within the deeply ingrained social system. In the previous laws, we see that there is an exclusion of women from the equal rights of maintenance under the omitted Section of the IPC, that is, Section 497. 14 which dealt with adultery law. It criminalized only the male adulterer and treated the women as the husband’s property, which clearly showcases the patriarchal underpinning. This was later struck down in the case of Joseph Shine v.
Union of India (2018), which deeply criticized the legal code that the male dominance over married women, denying women agency and their equal protection. When we look at the paradoxical decriminalization and the civil denial of the Indian laws, even though adultery was decriminalized, stating that it mainly focuses on individual autonomy and gender equality, the civil laws continue to allow the denial of maintenance based on the adulterous conduct of the women. This combination of the laws, in itself is being biased, creates conflicts, where the personal liberty is seen as of a criminal nature, but the economic rights remain focused upon moral judgments. The advocates then later started emphasizing the need for gender neutral laws on the maintenance rights, regardless of the adulterous conduct of the
12 https://bnblegal.com/article/can-a-wife-claim-maintenance-after-divorce/
13 https://www.impriindia.com/insights/examining-family-laws-prism-of-feminist-jurisprudence/
14 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5063964
spouses. Even the moral judgements that emphasize that maintenance rights are denied based on the adulterous conduct of the spouses, fail to keep in mind the reality of the gender power imbalance and the social stigma against women that is followed by the judgments. While the courts are upholding the maintenance rights to protect vulnerable spouses, their approach is very cautious and is clearly based on solid evidence that there was continuous adultery during the marriage or post-divorce. This approach reflects the judiciary’s attempts to bring in a balance of the protective intentions and the accountability, but continues to operate within a framework that is based on the conduct assessment that is deeply criticized by feminists.
Justice D Y Chandrachud had observed and stated that “a husband is not the master of his wife;” he focuses on the ongoing constitutional imbalance to transform such patriarchal legal remnants within family laws.
6. COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES
The developed common law countries, such as the United Kingdom and Australia, have evolved their approaches towards adultery and maintenance from a moral conduct have evolved away towards a clear focus on economic need. This analysis offers a captivating paradigm for the maintenance law debates in India, where they state that spousal support and divorce are harshly affected by the historical notions of marital fault and moral conduct. When we look at the UK and Australia have abolished adultery statutes that portray it as a crime. 15 The UK recognizes adultery as a ground for divorce proceedings, with no criminal liabilities or punitive consequences.
And, they have made a clear distinction between divorce and financial remedies, that the grounds for spousal maintenance are based on the economic need, standard of living during the marriage, and the future capacity to earn, and not by blaming or moral fault of either party. Australia, on the other hand, has an act that has decriminalized adultery, and the no-fault divorce mainly is based on the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, typically after 12 months of separation between the spouses. Spousal maintenance is mainly governed by the Family courts as per the parties' financial needs, resources to survive, and their ability to contribute, clearly directing that divorce is based only on fault-based considerations or the actual questions of past marital conduct.
And Australian Family Courts especially ignore adultery when they take maintenance into notice, as their ground will be the spouse’s need for
15 https://www.guillaumes.com/news/adultery-laws-uk
financial support. 16 The commonwealth members agree on the rule that separating the financial needs from the moral conduct of the spouses in family law strengthens the laws on gender equity, personal autonomy, and rehabilitative justice. Joanna Miles contends that this conditioned maintenance on the marital conduct risks conserving the old-fashioned gender roles and inequalities, particularly holding down the rights that women have post-divorce. Carolyn Sutherland observes that focusing on the need and the capacity of the spouses helps to remove the punishment for the failed marriages, by replacing moral judgment with modern financial responsibility, which brings about a rational ground in human dignity and social policy.
This comparison was done mainly to understand how the economic rights of the spouses can be protected by giving out judgments that bring out the right and clear ground for spousal maintenance, and that the judiciary’s focus on financial vulnerability and their capacity brings in well-structured and equal outcomes for both spouses.
7. CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES AND REFORM PROPOSALS
Denying maintenance to a spouse on the grounds of adultery poses several difficulties, especially putting the vulnerable parties, that is, women, at a great disadvantage. The challenges mostly start with proving the evidentiary burden of the spouse living in adultery, which will be against the isolated laws, as the courts need a clear, continuous proof of adulterous cohabitation. This requirement of the court happens to prolong the litigation, which in turn increases the costs and mainly the emotional and mental strain on the weaker spouse who is pursuing on getting their rights.
When we look into the decriminalization of adultery by the Supreme Court in the case of Joseph Shine’s case, created a critical inconsistency, where on one side adultery was removed stating to be a criminal offence, but on the other hand, civil laws, such as Section 144 (4) of the BNSS, 2023, continue to deny maintenance on adulterous conduct. This imbalance leaves divorced spouses, being caught between the criminal law that is improving on adult autonomy and personal liberty, and the civil law that sometimes perpetuates moral restrictions on the financial rights of the spouses. Lastly, we see that the maintenance laws unequally address the economic realities of the divorced women, particularly within the ambit of the patriarchal social structures that leave women dependent, stigmatized,
16 https://www.bansallawyers.com.au/divorce-laws-india-vs-australia
and socially insignificant after the marital breakdown. The legal focus upon marital conduct diverts the entire attention from the necessary needs, and it presses upon the gender-based stereotypes that penalize women’s autonomy, which in turn makes them vulnerable in society. 17 There are different views and opinions of the legal scholar, law commissions, and the family law experts, which will help in harmonizing the conflicting aspects and bring down the hardships faced by vulnerable spouses. They mostly include: a) Legislative clarification – the Legislation must reform certain statutes so as to align them with criminal and civil law on the concept of adultery, specifically by removing the denial of spousal maintenance based on adultery. It helps to resolve the conflicting views and also upholds the legal standards.
b) Gender-Neutral and Evidence-only framework – there must be an introduction to maintenance provisions that help to prioritize economic needs and the capacity of the spouses, regardless of their marital conduct. This will mainly help to eliminate the moral judgments and focus on equality. The court should focus entirely on the spouse's financial dependency and their earning capacity instead of their moral values. c) Better Social Support System – by bringing in a robust welfare and social security scheme that supports the economically weaker spouses who have been deprived of their maintenance rights due to denial on the grounds of moral misconduct. These schemes must make sure that there is proper upkeep of the schemes without the spouse falling into the time-consuming process of litigation or moral adjudications, so as to reduce the barriers to accessible support.
d) Judicial Sensitivity and Procedural Safeguards – the legislation must encourage the courts to adopt more protective mechanisms that favour the economic survival of the weaker spouses, so as to ensure that the allegations of adultery do not act as a blanket of denials without deeper diving into proper evidence of the moral misconduct, as reiterated by the High Court of Karnataka and Patna. Recent court judgments on the denial of spousal maintenance on the grounds of adultery call for a certain framework to be followed so as to address any further situations that arise from
17 https://juslawoffices.com/blog/alimony-and-maintenance-what-they-mean-in-2025/
the same matter. The Patna High Court reiterated that ‘living in adultery’ specifically means a continuous adulterous living, not any isolated acts of adultery, hereby reaffirming the need for clear evidence to deny the maintenance. As of the Karnataka High Court, it upheld the denial of maintenance, where it clearly stated that the evidence of continuous adultery must be proved. The above judgments showcase the judiciary’s attempts to balance protection with accountability while lessening unwarranted hardship.
8. CONCLUSION
In Indian law, a connection between adultery and maintenance entitlement reflects a complex and constantly shifting link between morality, social policy, and legal protection. The fundamental purpose of maintenance laws, specifically Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and its successor, Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, is to protect economically vulnerable spouses, particularly women, from poverty by requiring financially capable spouses to support them when necessary. These laws do, however, still contain provisions that reflect long-standing moral principles, most notably the prohibition against maintenance for a wife who is "living in adultery.
" In interpreting this exception, Indian courts deploy judicial caution, stressing that not awarding maintenance requires evidence of habitual, frequent conduct amounting to adultery rather than a single isolated event. The Patna High Court, for example, in 2025, reinforced the concept that there was no living in adultery because it was an ongoing conduct behaviour, and it was clarified that there had to be a finding of high probative value to deny spousal support and to prevent an arbitrary or wrongful denial of support to the claimant. This was similarly reflected in recent court decisions in Delhi and Chhattisgarh, where the causes of action were similarly based upon convincing, reliable evidence, including DNA tests and undisputed court findings of persistent and habitual adulterous conduct.
The ethical foundation of maintenance law is increasingly perceived as being inconsistent with emerging social values and updated constitutional directives. The 2018 Supreme Court decision in Joseph Shine v. Union of India decriminalized adultery without affecting its civil implications. This resulted in a situation where, under civil law, financial rights may be denied for moral reasons, while adult decision-making is permitted under criminal law. Many family law scholars, as well as law commissions, have recognized that this is, in fact, problematic and want to see legislative and judicial reform. There is growing awareness that linking economic
rights to fidelity in marriage may perpetuate gender-based discrimination and disadvantage women in patriarchal systems. Indian matrimonial law will need to respect its protective purposes in the future while also respecting the individual's guarantees of liberty and gender equality made by the Constitution. This will require recalibrating maintenance discourse for progressive reform in order to achieve the primary purpose of social justice while separating economic support from moral judgments. As societal norms continue to evolve, courts and lawmakers will therefore need to carefully negotiate the tension between protecting marital sanctity in appropriate cases and ensuring that maintenance, as a safeguard against poverty, is not unfairly curtailed by irrelevant moral standards.
References • Adab Singh Kapoor. (n. d. ). Living in adultery—not a bar to seek maintenance. • Arora, J. S. (2024). Contemporary analysis of divorce and maintenance laws in modern India. • Avtar Singh. (2021). Law of maintenance (16th ed. ). Eastern Book Company. • Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, Supreme Court (2014). • Bulbul Khatoon v. Md. Shamshad, Patna High Court (2025). • Giraben Sandipbhai Jotangiya v. State of Gujarat, 3 GLR 45 (2005). • Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. • Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. • Joseph Shine v. Union of India, 10 SCC 1 (2018). • Joshi, R. (2023). Maintenance laws and gender justice in India. Indian Journal of Gender Studies. • Kasturi v. Ramaswamy, Madras High Court (1979). • Kaur v. Kaur, 4 SCC 123 (2022). • Nandini A. Khaana. (2019). Adultery and Indian law: A critical analysis. Journal of Family Law. • Nandini Sharma. (2024).
Adultery and maintenance: Conflicting paradigms. Law Society Review. • Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. • Rajnesh v. Neha, Supreme Court (2020).
Resham Lal Dewangan v. Suman Dewangan, Chhattisgarh High Court (2025). • Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri, 3 SCC 180 (2000). • Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat, Gujarat High Court (2005). • Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code. • Section 144, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. • Section 497, Indian Penal Code. • Special Marriage Act, 1954. • Avinash Kumar v. State of UP, 7 SCC 342 (2021). Web Sources • Blog iPleaders. (n. d. ). Maintenance: CrPC & personal laws—A comparative study. https://blog. ipleaders. in/maintenance-crpc-personal-laws-comparative-study • Bansal Lawyers. (n. d. ). Divorce laws: India vs Australia. https://www. bansallawyers. com. au/divorce-laws-india-vs-australia • Guillaumes. (n. d. ). Adultery laws UK. https://www. guillaumes. com/news/adulterylaws-uk • IJLLR. (n. d. ). Explaining the concept of maintenance according to section 125 of CrPC.
https://www. ijllr. com/post/explaining-the-concept-of-maintenance-accordingto-section-125-of-crpc
IMPRI
India. (n.d.). Examining family laws: Prism of feminist jurisprudence. https://www.impriindia.com/insights/examining-family-laws-prism-offeminist-jurisprudence
Jus Law Offices. (2025). Alimony and maintenance: What they mean in
2025. https://juslawoffices.com/blog/alimony-and-maintenance-what-they-mean-in-
LawBeat. (n. d. ). Madhya Pradesh HC: A stray act or two of adultery doesn't disentitle wife claiming maintenance. https://lawbeat. in/news-updates/madhya-pradesh-hcstray-act-or-two-adultery-doesnt-disentitle-wife-claiming-maintenance-husband-mphigh • LawBeat. (n. d. ). Wife’s adultery must be continuous to deny maintenance: Patna High Court. https://lawbeat. in/news-updates/wifes-adultery-must-be-continuous-to-denymaintenance-patna-high-court-1512551 • LawWeb. (2023, December). What is distinction between grant of maintenance to wives under various acts? https://www. lawweb. in/2023/12/what-is-distinction-betweengrant-of. html • MyAdvo. (n. d. ). Laws relating to maintenance in India. https://www. myadvo. in/blog/laws-relating-to-maintenance-in-india • New Indian Express. (2025, February 15). Adultery in modern Indian law: From decriminalisation to civil relevance. https://www.
newindianexpress. com/nation/2025/Feb/15/adultery-inmodern-indian-law-from-decriminalisation-to-civil-relevance • Rohilla, J. S. (n. d. ). Rohtash Singh vs Ramendri Smt Ors: Can a divorced wife claim maintenance? https://jsrohilla. in/rohtash-singh-vs-ramendri-smt-ors-can-a-divorcedwife-claim-maintenance • SCConline. (2025, May 22). Divorced wife living in adultery disqualified from claiming maintenance under
S.
CrPC: Chhattisgarh HC. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/05/22/divorced-wife-living-inadultery-disqualified-from-claiming-maintenance-under-s-125-crpc-chhattisgarh-hc • The Edulaw. (n.d.). Judgements: Maintenance denied Adultery as absolute disqualification, even post-
divorce. https://www.theedulaw.in/content/judgements/105Maintenance-Denied- Adultery-as-Absolute-Disqualification-Even-Post-Divorce
• BNB
Legal. (n.d.). Can a wife claim maintenance after divorce? https://bnblegal.com/article/can-a-wife-claim-maintenance-after-divorce • Ssrn. (n.d.). [Paper on adultery law]. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5063964