The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a wife's love and affection for someone other than her husband does not amount to adultery unless it involves a physical relationship.

Justice G.S. Ahluwalia, sitting as a single-judge bench, dismissed a husband's challenge to the grant of interim maintenance to his wife. The court reiterated that a wife can be denied maintenance only if it is proven that she is living in adultery, which necessarily requires evidence of a sexual relationship with another man.

Citing Section 144(5) of the BNSS and Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C., the court clarified, “Only if the wife is proved to be living in adultery can maintenance be denied... Merely having love and affection for someone else without a physical relationship is not sufficient to establish adultery.”

The court emphasized that adultery, by definition, involves sexual intercourse.

The case stemmed from a revision petition filed by the husband against a Family Court order directing him to pay ₹4,000 per month as interim maintenance. The petitioner, employed as a Ward Boy with a salary of ₹8,000 per month, argued that his wife was already receiving ₹4,000 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, making additional maintenance excessive. He further contended that his wife was financially independent as she ran a beauty parlor.

The husband also claimed that his father had dispossessed him of family property through a public notice, leaving him financially strained. Additionally, he presented a diary entry allegedly written by his wife, which he claimed indicated her involvement with another man and threats of self-harm. On these grounds, he argued that she was ineligible for maintenance.

The wife, however, denied the allegations of adultery and maintained that she had no independent income. She also accused her husband of misrepresenting his financial and property status before marriage and subjecting her to physical abuse and cruelty.

The court found that the husband had failed to provide any substantive evidence to support his claims. Addressing the argument of the wife’s alleged financial independence, the court observed, “A mere assertion that the wife is running a beauty parlour is insufficient to deny her interim maintenance.”

The court also rejected the husband's claim that his limited income should exempt him from paying maintenance, stating, “A meager income cannot be grounds for denying maintenance. If the applicant chose to marry despite financial constraints, he alone is responsible. As an able-bodied person, he is expected to earn and provide for his wife.”

The court further dismissed the husband’s claim of dispossession, noting that records showed he continued to reside with his father, suggesting the public notice was merely a legal pretense.

Finding no illegality in the Family Court’s order, the High Court upheld the interim maintenance of ₹4,000 and dismissed the petition.