28 years after leaving marital home, woman moves court for monthly support
TNR News Network
BILASPUR: In a striking verdict, a Bilaspur family court in Himachal Pradesh has dismissed a woman’s plea seeking Rs 20,000 per month in maintenance from her first husband, ruling that a woman who has been “living in adultery” cannot claim support under the law.
The woman had approached the court nearly three decades after leaving her marital home, insisting she was the “legally wedded wife” and had not received any maintenance for a year.
She argued that her husband owned 70 bighas of land, had earned Rs 1.5 crore as compensation for the Kiratpur-Nerchowk four-lane project and was set to receive Rs 4 crore more for land being acquired for the Bhanupalli-Bilaspur rail line. Given these resources, she said, paying Rs 20,000 monthly was “no burden”.
Husband reveals a 28-year gap and parallel life
The husband countered with a very different picture. He told the court that around 28 years ago, his wife left home without any provocation and moved to Sangojla village in Kapurthala district of Punjab, where she lived with one Sadhu Jarnail Singh.
According to him, she changed her name to Lakshmi and lived openly as Jarnail Singh’s wife, even inheriting his property after his death.
He presented several documents in court to support his claim, including Punjab government ration card showing her as Lakshmi, wife of Jarnail Singh; widow pension application in the same name; Aadhaar card, voter ID and panchayat records reflecting her as Jarnail Singh’s spouse; and a certificate from Sangojla gram panchayat confirming she lived there as his wife.
The court noted that the woman offered no independent witness to back her version, relying solely on her own statement. In contrast, the husband produced the panchayat pradhan and his son as witnesses.
Court cites CrPC 125(4): No maintenance for adulterous wife
The husband further stated that in 2016, he received a message through their daughter that the woman was facing threats following Jarnail Singh’s death. He then travelled to Punjab with relatives and brought her back home. Since then, he said, she had been living with him and had been provided two rooms and separate amenities.
In its November 17, 2025, judgment, the court held that under Section 125(4) of the CrPC, a wife who is living in adultery is not entitled to maintenance.
The court observed that the woman had herself admitted she was not living with her husband before 2016, and official records clearly established she resided as another man’s wife.
The judge added that even if the husband was wealthy, “a wife living in adultery cannot be granted maintenance.” The court also dismissed the woman’s argument that because her husband had married again, she too was “licensed” to remarry or live with another man.
Finding no merit in her claim, the court rejected the woman’s maintenance application, bringing an end to a case that spanned 28 years, two relationships and a trail of documents revealing a second life she had built far from home.
