Divorce
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 12 October 2011
This query is : Resolved
I and my wife have filed application for mutual divorce in the court. We are living separately for eleven months I have come to know she is pregnant what is its implication on divorce proceedings, maintenance case and her criminal culpability for infidelity.
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 12 October 2011
No need to have any implications on divroce proceedings and maintenance.
Criminal culpability of adulterer is there, but why to get into. Get over it my brother.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 12 October 2011
Mr. Kapoor are you suggesting she committs a crime & i reward her by paying maintenance.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 12 October 2011
You are not liable for any maintenance for adulterer or her "dushkarma'. Though a wise person shall try to get rid of such woman as soon as possible and it is possible by way of your mutual divorce petition but if the lastest development agitate you and you want to open fronts to fight then definitely you can do so and even can file a criminal case against her, you shall even not be liable for any maintenance towards her or her child and you can also seek a decree of divorce on the bases of cruelty but beware, it shall take many valuable years of your life say you shall have to spoil various years for this purpose which an be used for settling your future life. You have both options. Decision is with you.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 12 October 2011
Her pregnancy during period you both have been living separately suggest she had been consuming some one else than you and her act in law is called "adultery".The impact on proceeding is that either she has to admit it as conception from some one else or it would be supposed that you were the begetter which shall bring upon you an additional burden of maintenance of the child she may give birth.
In case she does not admit it opens the door of a contested divorce.When she is not chaste you do not fall under liability to maintain her.But law will put you to prove
these and only evidence that you can rely for her evidence as admission is the mutual divorce petition where she might have stated to have been living separately from you from which she may go back also and criminal case needs prove beyond doubt.
Guest
(Expert) 12 October 2011
Yes, proof of adultory against wife can help you break the relations and also save life long liability of maintenance.
Sankaranarayanan
(Expert) 12 October 2011
yes i agreed with mr prabhakar singh ,s opinion
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 12 October 2011
Mr. Singh
If she does not admit can i not request court to order Paternity test.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 12 October 2011
yes you can
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
12.05.2008
Present : Mr.K.P. Mavi for the petitioners
Mr. Pawan Sharma/ Ms. Fizani Hussain, APP for the State.
Mr. Kapil Jain for the respondent
Coram: VIPIN SANGHI, J
Crl.M.C.No.1815/2007
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated
4.5.2007 passed by the learned M.M. on the application of the petitioner praying for the
conduct of DNA test in respect of respondent No.3 Master Ansh who according to the
petitioner, is not his biological son. Respondent No.1 is the wife of the petitioner.
Respondent No.2, admittedly, is the son of respondent No.1, from an earlier marriage.
RespondentNo.1 had preferred an application for seeking maintenance under Section
125Cr.P.C. In those proceedings the petitioner who is the husband ofrespondentNo.1,
preferred the aforesaid application seeking the conduct of DNA test in respect of respondent
No.3 to determine his parentage since, according to him, respondent No.3 is not his
biological child. That application has been rejected by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate
by the impugned order dated4.5.2007.The learned Magistrate has rejected the application by
holding that the DNA test will not have any effect on the merits of the present petition as
the present petition is under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the provisions of Section 125Cr.P.C.
do not make any difference between legitimate and illegitimate children in order to
maintenance.
The submission of the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate has not appreciated the fact
that respondent No.3 is not alleged to be the legitimate child of the petitioner husband. The
claim of the husband is thatrespondentNo.3 is not his biological child and that he was
conceived by respondent No.1in adultery. He also refers to the order-dated 13.2.2007
wherein, at one stage, counsel for the respondent had recorded his no objection to the prayer
made inthe application of the petitioner. Even the subsequent statement made by learned
counsel for respondent No.1 herein, only pertains to the DNA test that the petitioner had
sought in respect of claimant No.2, who admittedly, is not the biological child of the
petitioner.
Counsel for the petitioner also relies on a decision of this Court in Kanchan Bedi and Anr.
vs. Gurpreet Singh Bedi 2003(67) DRJ 297. In that decision this Court had considered
various earlier decisions on the point and in paragraph 8 thus concluded there is no
impediment or violation of rights in directing persons to submit themselves for DNA test,
especially where the parentage of a child is in controversy for the grant of maintenance.
Submission of learned counsel for the respondent is that a perusal of the memo of parties as
filed by the petitioner shows that he claims himself to be the father of respondent No.3
Master Ansh. He further submits that in various other proceedings the petitioner has not
disowned his parentage qua respondent No.3.
In my view these submissions are of no avail. So far as the memo of parties is concerned the
petitioner has simply adopted the description of the parties as is contained in the application
filed by respondent Under Section 125Cr.P.C. The same is not determinative of the fact
whether the petitioner is the biological father of respondent No.3 or not. The parentage of
respondent No.3can only be determined by the conduct of DNA test. The liability to pay
maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. can be avoided qua respondent No.3 only if it is
established that he is not the biological son of the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid, I am
of the view that the learned Magistrate wrongly rejected the application filed by the
petitioner praying for the conduct of DNA test of respondent No.3 Master Ansh.
Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order dated 4.5.2007 passed by the learned Magistrate
and further direct that DNA test of respondentNo.3 be conducted at All India Institute of
Medical Science, New Delhi. For the drawing of samples for the test, the respondents are
directed to ensure the presence of respondent No.3 before the Medical Superintendent,
AIIMS on22.05.2008 at 11 a.m.
Petition stands disposed of.
Dasti.
May 12, 2008 VIPIN SANGHI, J
Shastri J.K.
(Expert) 12 October 2011
I also agree with mr.prabhakar singh ,s opinion
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 12 October 2011
dear author!
Mr.Sethi Has done my job for you in even a more better way.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 12 October 2011
I do agree with common views of all experts.
Guest
(Expert) 13 October 2011
FILE A PETITION BEFORE MAINTENACE COURT THAT THE PETITIONER IS INDULGING IN THE ACT OF ADULTERY AND THE THE COURT WILL DECIDE THE MAINTENACE CASE ON THE FACTS AND DEFINITELY DISMISSED THE MAINTENANCE CASE. THEN FILE THE JUDGEMENT COPY IN THE DIVORCE CASE.
