Kerala High Court: “Wife Living Separately Without Sufficient Reason Not Entitled to Maintenance”; Sets Aside Rs. 25,000 Award
Isabella Mariam
The Kerala High Court Single Bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath,has set aside a Family Court order that directed a husband to pay monthly maintenance to his estranged wife. The Bench, recorded that the wife had been living separately without sufficient justification and was, therefore, disentitled to claim maintenance under Section 125(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The judgment of the Family Court requiring the husband to pay Rs. 25,000 per month as maintenance to his wife has been set aside by the Court.
The petitioner and the respondent were legally wedded husband and wife, having solemnized their marriage on 07 January 2008. A female child was born out of the wedlock on 03 April 2013. Matrimonial disputes arose between the parties in the year 2015, leading to the initiation of multiple legal proceedings. Both the petitioner and the respondent filed petitions for custody of their minor child. Additionally, the petitioner filed a petititon for divorce before the Family Court, Thrissur, seeking divorce on grounds of desertion and cruelty. The Family Court granted divorce as per the order dated 21 April 2017.
Subsequently, the respondent wife filed a petittion before the Family Court, Thrissur, seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Family Court tried the maintenance case alongside two petitions for guardianship filed by both parties and delivered a common order. Through the common order, the Family Court directed the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 25,000 to the respondent.
The petitioner husband challenged this order before the High Court, arguing that the respondent wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any sufficient reason on 16 November 2015 and, therefore, was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The petitioner, through his counsel, submitted that the respondent had left his company without justification and had been living separately. The counsel for the respondent submitted that she had been compelled to live separately on account of ill-treatment by the petitioner.
The Family Court, after considering evidence from both parties, found that the respondent left the matrimonial home without a valid reason, leaving behind their 2½-year-old child, and did not return thereafter. The Family Court’s common order recorded that while the respondent claimed to have left due to ill-treatment, there was no evidence of such conduct on the part of the petitioner.
The High Court, while examining the common order, referred to paragraph 27 and paragraph 31 of the Family Court's findings. The Court recorded that the respondent had admitted to leaving the matrimonial home on 16 November 2015. However, the Family Court found no evidence of ill-treatment and noted that the respondent had not filed any complaint against the petitioner before the police. The Family Court further recorded that the respondent left the matrimonial home “with the definite intention to teach a lesson to the petitioner” and that “absolutely, there is no evidence to show that she was ill-treated by the petitioner as alleged by the respondent.”
The High Court also took note of the divorce decree passed, where divorce was granted on the grounds of desertion and cruelty.
The High Court recorded that marriage carries certain mutual responsibilities, including companionship and the fulfilment of marital obligations. The Court observed: “The primary duty of parties in marriage is to live together and fulfil their marital obligations. The right to each other’s society, comfort and affection, often referred to as ‘consortium’ is a fundamental aspect of marriage.”
The Court further recorded: “A husband is legally and morally bound to provide maintenance to his wife. The right of the wife to be maintained by the husband stems from the corresponding obligation to perform marital duty.”
It was noted that while Section 125(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code entitles a wife who is unable to maintain herself to claim maintenance, this right is subject to limitations under sub-section (4). The Court observed: “A wife who chooses to live separately without sufficient reason is disentitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C.”
The Court recorded that this disentitlement applies where the wife lives separately without any valid grounds, such as cruelty or desertion. It was noted that in this case, there was no evidence to substantiate the respondent’s claim of ill-treatment, and no complaint was ever lodged with the police.
The Court stated: “As stated already, there is clear evidence on record to show that the respondent has been living separately since 16.11.2015 without any sufficient reason and there is no evidence to show that she was ill-treated by the petitioner as alleged.”
The Court concluded that the Family Court’s direction to pay maintenance could not be sustained. The High Court ordered: “The impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is set aside. M.C. No. 354 of 2017 of Family Court, Thrissur stands dismissed. This revision petition is allowed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: K. Meera, Advocate, Boby Mathew, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ajmal V.A., Advocate, A.C. Arfana, Advocate, Fathima V.A., Advocate
Case Title: XXX v YYY
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:21060
Case Number: RPFC No. 207 of 2020
Bench: Justice Kauser Edappagath
[Read/Download order]
