The Kerala High Court has ruled that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to establish adultery in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC. The Court denied maintenance to a wife after concluding habitual adulterous behaviour.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KERALA: In a judgment, the Kerala High Court recently clarified that adultery in a marital relationship can be established through circumstantial evidence, particularly in cases related to maintenance claims under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Justice Kauser Edappagath, while delivering the verdict, emphasized that maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are civil in nature. Therefore, the standard of proof required is much lower than in criminal cases.
“Proof by preponderance of probabilities is sufficient in maintenance proceedings,”
the Court observed, noting that direct evidence of adultery is rare since such acts occur in secrecy.
Background of the Case
The ruling came after a husband challenged the family court’s order that requires him to pay ₹7,500 per month in maintenance to his ex-wife. He argued that under Section 125(4) CrPC, a wife who is “living in adultery” is not entitled to maintenance, and claimed he had sufficient evidence to prove her extramarital relationship.
The wife, however, contended that disqualification applies only when adultery is continuous, and not based on isolated incidents.
Court’s Observations
The Kerala High Court highlighted precedent requiring proof of habitual or continuous adulterous behaviour, but clarified that such proof can be based on logical, circumstantial evidence, rather than direct proof.
The Court noted the following pieces of evidence:
- Psychologist’s treatment records documenting repeated references to the wife’s affair
- Notations suggesting a tendency toward extramarital relationships
- The alleged partner was himself undergoing divorce
- Supporting witness testimonies
The Court held that these circumstances collectively demonstrated adultery on a balance of probabilities, fulfilling the requirement of Section 125(4) CrPC.
Setting aside the family court order, the High Court ruled that the wife was not eligible for maintenance due to habitual adulterous behaviour proven through circumstantial evidence.
“Whether a woman is living in adultery cannot be decided numerically. The matter must be viewed holistically,”
the judgment stated.
Appearance:
The petitioner (husband): Advocates A Rajasimhan, Vykhari KU, Sharafudheen MK, and Anas Ali MM
The respondent (wife): Advocates RK Rajeshkumar, Manoj V George, TN Bindu, Abhishek, Dhananjay Deepak and Jijo Jose
Case Title:
JINESH.C.R. versus ASWATHY.P.R.
RPFC NO. 100 OF 2023
READ ORDER
Click Here to Read More Reports on Maintenance