The Karnataka High Court recently ruled that a wife cannot seek financial support when she is in an extramarital relationship with another person. This decision was made by Justice Rajendra Badamikar while rejecting a woman's petition to reconsider an earlier ruling that denied her financial support under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).

The court determined that the evidence unmistakably demonstrated that the petitioner-wife was not "faithful" to her husband and was engaged in "illicit relationships" with her neighbor, with whom she was cohabiting.

The court ruled that when the petitioner is involved in an extramarital relationship, her right to claim maintenance does not exist. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that she is a legally married wife entitled to maintenance, citing her dishonesty and involvement in an adulterous relationship as reasons for the decision.

The court also observed that the wife's allegation that her husband was involved in an "illicit relationship" with his sister-in-law's daughter was contested and not proven. Additionally, the court stated that, “since the petitioner is claiming maintenance, she must prove that she is honest and when she herself is not honest, she cannot pin-point her fingers towards her husband.”

Previously, the petitioner had filed a petition under the Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) seeking protection, a place to stay, and financial support. A magistrate had granted her a protection order and also awarded her the following financial support: ₹1,500 for maintenance, ₹1,000 for rent, and ₹5,000 as compensation.

The additional sessions judge overturned the magistrate's decision following an appeal by the husband. The husband's legal representative argued that the marriage had already been annulled by a family court due to allegations of adultery and cruelty.

In response to a revision petition filed challenging this decision, the High Court remarked that the magistrate had not properly considered these crucial factors and had awarded maintenance and compensation in a mechanical or thoughtless manner.

The Court further emphasized that the sessions judge had correctly rejected the petitioner's claim, given her involvement in an adulterous relationship. Since there was no evident error or injustice in the sessions judge's decision, the Court dismissed the revision petition.