High Court Ruling: Residence in Father’s Friend’s House Doesn’t Constitute Adultery

In a significant judgment, the Patna High Court ruled that a married woman residing in the house of her father’s friend of a different religion does not amount to adultery. The court emphasized the importance of not reducing all social relationships to sexual ones and cautioned against drawing such conclusions based on mere residence arrangements.

Case Overview: The petition challenged the Family Court’s decision to grant maintenance to the respondent under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

Petitioner’s Argument: The petitioner argued that the respondent, in her testimony, admitted to residing with another person, which, according to the petitioner, constituted adultery under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code. It was contended that adultery can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, and the respondent’s admission of living with another man established an adulterous relationship.

Court’s Observations: The court defined adultery as engaging in a consensual physical relationship with someone other than one’s spouse. It noted the difficulty in proving adultery directly and stated that circumstantial evidence can establish an adulterous relationship. However, it cautioned against selectively interpreting evidence to impute illicit relationships.

The court highlighted that the petitioner selectively quoted the respondent’s testimony, omitting crucial details that the person in question was the father’s friend and elderly. It emphasized that labeling residency in such circumstances as adultery would undermine social relationships and reduce them to sexual ones.

The court reasoned that a woman seeking refuge in her father’s friend’s house cannot be automatically deemed to be engaged in adultery, as relationships extend beyond sexual ones.

Court’s Decision: The court dismissed the petition, deeming its contentions baseless and imposed a cost of Rs. 20,000 on the petitioner.

Case Details:

• Case Title: Rajesh Kumar Gupta @ Rajesh Gupta v State of Bihar & Anr.
• Coram: Hon’ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri
• Case No.: CRIMINAL REVISION No.1578 of 2019
• Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Rabindra Kumar Choubey, Ms. Minu Kmari
• Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey

 If you like this law news, share it with a friend!