The Allahabad High Court has ruled that an individual named as an adulterous partner in matrimonial maintenance proceedings must be granted an opportunity to be heard before any adverse judicial determination is entered against them.
Presiding over the matter, Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla dismissed a criminal revision plea brought by a husband and upheld a lower court mandate ordering him to provide Rs 30,000 in combined monthly maintenance to his estranged wife and their minor son.
The court held that levelling adultery accusations against a specifically identified third party carries consequences that extend well past the financial dispute between spouses. Emphasising that such judicial observations directly implicate a person’s dignity, character, and standing in society, the court concluded that procedural fairness demands giving the named party a chance to contradict and contest the allegations.
Protection of Third-Party Dignity
The high court observed that attributing adultery to an identified individual cannot be treated as an inconsequential remark during maintenance litigation. In reaching this conclusion, Justice Shukla drew upon the framework of the Hindu Marriage Rules, 1956, noting that the rules recognise how determinations concerning third parties directly impact personal reputation and necessitate an opportunity for defence.
Turning to ancient jurisprudence alongside modern legal standards, the bench invoked the Katyayana Smriti and core principles of natural justice that bar condemning individuals without a hearing. The court cited the classical precept that any judgment delivered without hearing the opposing side lacks rectitude, regardless of the correctness of the final conclusion.
Applying these tenets to the dispute, the court highlighted that while the husband had explicitly named the purported co-adulterer, he took no procedural steps to summon the individual or have court notices served upon him to substantiate the claims.
Background of the Maintenance Dispute
The ruling arose from an appeal against a March 2025 directive issued by a family court. In that earlier decision, the family court had granted the wife’s plea for maintenance, ordering the husband to remit Rs 20,000 per month to her and Rs 10,000 per month to their minor child, with payments effective from the initial date of the application.
Challenging that decree before the high court, the husband argued that the family court had miscalculated his financial position and earnings while ignoring his submitted arguments. He further contended that his wife had engaged in an adulterous relationship, presenting photographic and electronic materials that the family court had refused to admit because they lacked the requisite certification mandated under the Indian Evidence Act.
Finding no merit in the husband’s challenge to the lower court’s decision, the high court rejected the petition and left the maintenance award intact.
