Where a decree of Divorce was granted to a husband on the ground of desertion
by the wife,it was held that the wife is not disentitled to get the alimony
though her conduct may be considered in fixing the quantum. The conduct is not
limited to the instances mentioned in section 25(3) . On the aspect the decision
in Rajinder Prakash v Roshnidevi was dissented from.
In Atam Prakash v Jaya Devi ,a wife living in adultery was held entitled
Unchastity is no ground to refuse maintenance u/s 24 or under this section .
However the conduct is relevant while considering the quantum of maintenance. An
unchaste wife' at the time of dissolution of marriage is entitled to starving
allowance which disappears if she is earning or is not in a helpless position.
For the allowance is meant to prevent starvation relying on Asheroff vs
Asherof, in which it was held that u/s 32 of the Matrimonial causes Act ,the
court will order the husband to secure a provision for his guilty wife even
though his own conduct has been unimpeachable if the wife is entirely without
means of support and unable to have her own living.
But in Sachindranath v Benamala it was held that as unchastely on the
part of the women and also sexual intercourse by a man with a women out side
wedlock are sins against ethics of matrimonial mortality in this country , where
the wife is proved to be living in adultery ,she would not be entitled for
The wife is not entitled to maintenance if she begot a child by some person than
the husband. Maintenance of that illegitimate child also does not arise. These
decisions were dissented from in a recent decision.