Woman entitled to alimony despite refusal to live with husband: Supreme Court
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 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 CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar allowed a woman’s appeal against an order of the Jharkhand High Court issued on August 4, 2023.
The HC had held that the wife was not entitled to maintenance as she had withdrawn from her husband’s society without reasonable excuse and that she had not returned to the matrimonial home despite a decree for restitution of conjugal rights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. She had not even challenged the decree.
However, setting aside the HC’s verdict, the SC 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, 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 had passed the order.
The verdict assumes significance in view of the fact that Section 125(4), 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 analysing 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 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).”
