One-night stand in an excusable situation not adultery: Gujarat HC
Woman denied alimony by HC for premeditated sexual act with a man outside of marriage
Ahmedabad: Upholding a lower court’s definition of adultery, the Gujarat high court observed that a few unwitting lapses made by an individual cannot be termed adultery, according to reports. The court however ruled that a premeditated sexual act by a spouse with someone outside of marriage is adultery.
The High Court made these observations while hearing a case from Patan district, where a woman demanded financial maintenance from her husband. The court refused maintenance to the wife, as she was admittedly having an extra-marital relationship with another man. However the court upheld the payment of maintenance of the minor child by the father but not to the woman.
"Had it been a one-night stand and if it arose out of an excusable situation, it would be a lapse. But in this case, the woman has voluntarily indulged in sexual intercourse with predetermination and clear mindset with a person other than her husband and that too during her pregnancy. Such relationships cannot be termed as one or two lapses. Conspicuously exhibiting such an act is adultery”, the court wrote on the case.
The woman had earlier moved a magisterial court seeking alimony under the provisions of section 125 of CrPC, but the court ruled against her. She then again, to no success, approached a sessions court that denied her maintenance due to her adulterous lifestyle.
In its order, the sessions court said, "One or two lapses or an occasional incident may be condoned, provided that they are unwitting. Sometimes, a situation arises whereupon, even without design or thought in mind, a young person may indulge in an intimate act. But an act of sexual intercourse by a spouse with another person, predetermined or preconceptualized, even if it is a singular act, would be adultery."
The High Court echoed the views of the lower courts and did not favour the woman in the case. Rejecting alimony to the woman, the High Court judge had written "I am of view that no error, not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the courts below."