The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has ruled that a maintenance order cannot be contested indirectly during execution proceedings by claiming that the wife is living in adultery. The court emphasized that such allegations must be addressed through the proper legal channels rather than during enforcement of maintenance orders. This decision underscores the necessity of following established legal processes for disputes regarding personal conduct in marriage.
The JMFC court accepted his application on May 30, 2024, holding that there had been a change in circumstances warranting dismissal of the execution proceedings. The revisional court, on April 11, 2025, set aside the magistrate’s order and restored the execution proceedings, holding that the original maintenance order continued to remain in force. On August 12, 2026, Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gadchiroli, granted divorce to the husband on the ground that the wife was living in adultery.
“If he wanted to contest the wife’s entitlement to maintenance on the grounds of adultery, the appropriate course was to challenge the original order under the DV Act or pursue a separate proceeding under CrPC,” it said. The executing court could not sit in appeal over the original maintenance order or examine the correctness of findings,” the judge said. It could not be used as a basis for denying or withholding maintenance already awarded, particularly in execution proceedings,” Justice Pathan said.
The court held that the executing court had exceeded its jurisdiction by examining the allegation that the wife had remarried and was living in adultery while considering the husband’s application to terminate the execution proceedings. The wife and daughter challenged the order before Gadchiroli Sessions Court. The husband then approached HC. The court emphasised that the husband had allowed the original maintenance order to remain unchallenged. HC also noted that the wife had specifically denied the allegations of a second marriage and adultery. “The scope of the execution proceedings was limited to examining whether the JMFC’s order of maintenance was being duly complied with. The court further observed that a mere allegation that a wife was living in adultery was not sufficient. “Such an allegation must be established through cogent and reliable evidence, and the party raising the plea must prima facie establish.