The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that a wife, even if she refuses to live with her husband despite a decree of restitution of conjugal rights, is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), Live Law reported.
The bench, consisting of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, addressed the question: “Will a husband, who secures a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, stand absolved of paying maintenance to his wife by virtue of Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if his wife refuses to abide by the said decree and return to the matrimonial home?”
Justice Sanjay Kumar, who authored the judgment, said that a wife’s refusal to comply with a decree of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for just cause, would not disqualify her from claiming maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
What is the case?
The Court ruled that the respondent-husband had completely neglected his wife, the Appellant, after she suffered a miscarriage and had been mistreated in their matrimonial home. As a result, the court concluded that the appellant had sufficient cause to not return to the matrimonial home, the Live Law report said.
It further said that the husband could not be relieved of his responsibility to provide maintenance to his wife, even if she had not complied with the decree of restitution of conjugal rights.
The Court observed: “Dinesh (husband), therefore, tried to protect himself from Reena’s (wife) maintenance claim by using the disobeyed restitution decree as a defence. As long as she was not divorced, he sought to benefit from this defence. This stalemate created by Dinesh clearly shows his lack of good faith and his attempt to reject all responsibility towards his wife, Reena. These factors, taken together, clearly demonstrate that Reena had more than enough reason to stay away from her husband, Dinesh. Her refusal to live with him, despite the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, cannot be held against her. Therefore, the disqualification under Section 125(4) CrPC. does not apply, and the High Court’s decision to deny her maintenance was a grave error.”
SC directs husband to provide Rs. 10,000/- per month
The Court upheld the Wife’s appeal against the Jharkhand High Court‘s decision, overturning the Family Court’s order that had directed the Respondent-Husband to pay Rs. 10,000 per month as maintenance to the Appellant-Wife. The Court emphasised that the decree for restitution of conjugal rights would not absolve the husband of his responsibility to maintain his wife. It clarified that while the restitution decree is an important factor, it does not automatically determine the wife’s eligibility for maintenance.
The Court stated that it must independently evaluate the wife’s reasons for living separately when considering her maintenance request. The Court rejected the Husband’s argument that the wife’s refusal to return to the matrimonial home and live with him amounted to a refusal under Section 125(4) of the CrPC, which would disqualify her from maintenance.
Instead, the Court explained that Section 125 is a social justice provision to prevent destitution and vagrancy. It applies regardless of ongoing marital disputes, and even divorced wives are eligible for maintenance under certain conditions.
The Court referred to the decisions in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria vs. State of Gujarat (1996) and Amrita Singh vs. Ratan Singh (2018), noting that “the mere passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights at the husband’s behest and non-compliance therewith by the wife would not, by itself, be sufficient to attract the disqualification under Section 125(4) CrPC.”
The Court added: “It would depend on the facts of the individual case and it would have to be decided, on the strength of the material and evidence available, whether the wife still had valid and sufficient reason to refuse to live with her husband, despite such a decree. There can be no hard and fast rule in this regard and it must invariably depend on the distinctive facts and circumstances in each case. In any event, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights secured by a husband coupled with non-compliance therewith by the wife would not be determinative straightaway either of her right to maintenance or the applicability of the disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.”