Satish Kumar Arora v. Varsha Arora

M. Wahajuddin, J.:— The Magistrate held that the charge of unchastity levelled by the husband is not proved. The re-visional court held that levelling a charge of unchastity is in itself a good ground for allowing the petition of the wife for maintenance. In the present case, the maintenance has been allowed for the wife and two issues. It would appear that although initially any charge of unchastity, was not leveled by the husband against the wife, after the wife's evidence concluded and the applicant was to lead evidence, an application was moved for summoning a lady doctor alleging that the applicant, seeing the wife coming from maternity Hospital, while she was living separately since much before, got suspicious and then on enquiry from Hospital gathered that she has got pregnancy medically terminated. The charge of unchastity against a wife is a very serious charge and no lady with a sense of respect would be willing to live with such husband. Besides, if the husband is suspicious enough as to even suspect the chastity of his wife, the life of the wife will become a hell living with such a husband, because he may keep developing such auspicions every day. In the circumstances, a charge of unchastity, if levelled should be strictly proved. If it is not proved, it will be a proper justification for the wife not to live with such a husband who calls her unchaste. In the present case the charge was not proved, because the identity of the lady, whose pregnancy was got terminated, was not established according to the legal standard of proof and evidence. When that is the position, it can be ??? up that the husband levelled a charge of unchastity against the wife, which could not be established, and that being the position the wife was fully justified to refuse to live with such husband.

2. There is decision against the applicant by the two courts below. Powers under Section 482, Cr. P.C, are to be exercised in rarest of rare cases.

3. True that the revisional court did not enter into a detailed discussion of evidence regarding the allegation of unchastity and simply held that levelling of charge of unchastity is itself a ground for refusal to live with the husband. I have already discussed that aspect in this judgment. The application under Section 482, Cr. P.C has no force and it is smmarily rejected.