Wife entitled to maintenance despite her refusal to join husband: SC

Even if a woman refuses to live with her husband despite a decree of restitution of conjugal rights against her, she is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, the Supreme Court has ruled.

Noting that there was no hard and fast rule that a man can deny maintenance to his wife merely because she didn't live with him, a Bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar allowed a woman’s appeal against a Jharkhand High Court’s August 4, 2023 order that said she was not entitled to maintenance.

The high court had held that the wife had withdrawn from her husband’s society without reasonable excuse and that she had not returned to the matrimonial home despite a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in the husband’s favour which she had chosen not to challenge.

However, setting aside the high court’s verdict, the top court on Friday said, “Her refusal to comply with the decree of conjugal rights passed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on just cause would not disentitle her to claim maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the CrPC.”

The Bench restored a Dhanbad family court’s order to the husband to pay her Rs 10,000 per month as maintenance. It also ordered the husband to clear the arrears of maintenance since February 15, 2022 when the family court passed the maintenance order.

The verdict assumes significance in view of the fact that Section 125(4) of the CrPC states that a wife is not entitled to receive maintenance from her husband if she is living in adultery or she refuses to live with her husband without a sufficient reason or they are living separately by mutual consent.

After analyzing the legal provisions, the Bench said, “Thus, the preponderance of judicial thought weighs in favour of upholding the wife’s right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and 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.

“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,” it said.

“There can be no hard and fast rule in this regard and it must invariably depend on the distinctive facts and circumstances obtained in each particular 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) CrPC,” the top court said.