The central question is whether a husband is exempt from paying maintenance to his wife under Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if she refuses to return home despite a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The Supreme Court examines the wife’s reasons for leaving and the husband’s conduct, ultimately finding that her refusal was justified due to ill-treatment, and therefore, she is entitled to maintenance despite the decree. The Supreme Court clarifies that maintenance proceedings are civil in nature and that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not automatically disqualify a wife from receiving maintenance. The Supreme Court overturns the High Court’s decision and restores the Family Court’s order granting maintenance to the wife, emphasizing the purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is social justice for destitute women.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125(4) – Evidence Act, 1872, Section 40 to 43 – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Sections 40 to 43 – Maintenance – Refusal by wife to abide by decree of restitution of conjugal rights – Maintenance – Claim by wife – 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, 1973, if his wife refuses to abide by the said decree and return to the matrimonial home? – Findings in the proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights, which were partly uncontested as Petitioner did not appear before the Family Court to adduce evidence or advance her case after filing her written statement, did not clinch the issue and the High Court ought not to have given such undue weightage to the said judgment and the findings therein – The fact that the witnesses who appeared on behalf of petitioner in the Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings were not even cross-examined – It was clear therefrom that respondent-husband did not even contest or rebut what they had stated – The fact that petitioner was fully dependent on her brother was thus admitted – Further, documents were placed on record in proof of Reena’s abortion in January, 2015 – In that regard, respondent admission that he did not bear the expenditure for her treatment and her unrebutted assertion that he did not take her to the hospital or even come from Ranchi to see her were clear indicia of the pain and mental cruelty meted out to her – The fact that she was not allowed to use the toilet in the house or avail proper facilities to cook food in the matrimonial home, facts which were accepted in the restitution proceedings, are further indications of her ill-treatment –She, therefore, had just cause to not return to her matrimonial home, despite the restitution decree – The restitution decree came to be passed on 23.04.2022 – Admittedly, there was no attempt made at reconciliation after 2017 – However, having secured the said restitution decree, Dinesh did nothing – He neither sought execution of the decree under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC nor did he seek a decree of divorce under Section 13(1A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – These factors, taken cumulatively, clearly manifest that petitioner had more than sufficient reason to stay away from the society of her husband, and her refusal to live with him, notwithstanding the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, therefore, cannot be held against her – In consequence, the disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. was not attracted – Judgment passed by the High Court liable to be set aside – In consequence, the order by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court in Original Maintenance Case shall stand restored – Respondent No. 1 herein, shall pay maintenance @ ₹10,000/- per month to the appellant, on or before the 10th day of each calendar month – Such maintenance would be payable from the date of filing of the maintenance application, i.e., 03.08.2019 – Arrears of the maintenance shall be paid by respondent no. 1 in three equal installments, i.e., the first installment by 30.04.2025, the second installment by 31.08.2025 and the third and final installment by 31.12.2025.
(Para 35, 37 to 39)
Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena V. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 55: (DoJ 10-01-2025)
