Pranav B Prem

The Supreme Court has ruled that a wife is not disqualified from claiming maintenance under Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) merely because she refuses to comply with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights obtained by her husband. The Court emphasized that such refusal must be assessed in the context of the circumstances and reasons for her decision to stay away from her husband.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar set aside the Jharkhand High Court's decision, which had denied maintenance to the wife under Section 125(4) CrPC. The High Court had reasoned that the husband's restitution of conjugal rights decree justified disqualifying the wife from claiming maintenance.

Background of the Case

The case concerned a wife, Reena Kumari, who had sought maintenance under Section 125 CrPC after alleging cruelty, harassment, and dowry demands by her husband, Dinesh Kumar Mahto. She claimed she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home due to mistreatment and a lack of basic amenities. She also stated that she had suffered a miscarriage without any support or concern from her husband.

Dinesh, in turn, filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights, which was decreed in his favor by the Family Court in April 2022. Despite the decree, Reena did not return to her matrimonial home, asserting that she had justifiable reasons to stay away.

Family Court and High Court Rulings

The Family Court granted maintenance to Reena, holding that her allegations of mistreatment and lack of support were credible. It directed Dinesh to pay ₹10,000 per month as maintenance from the date of the application. However, Dinesh challenged this decision before the Jharkhand High Court, which overturned the Family Court's order, citing Section 125(4) CrPC. The High Court held that Reena had refused to live with her husband without sufficient cause, relying on her non-compliance with the restitution decree.

Supreme Court's Observations

Reversing the High Court's decision, the Supreme Court observed that Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice aimed at preventing destitution and vagrancy among neglected wives, children, and parents. It clarified that the existence of a restitution decree does not automatically negate a wife's claim for maintenance.

The Court highlighted the following points:

1. A decree for restitution of conjugal rights, coupled with the wife’s non-compliance, is not determinative of her disqualification under Section 125(4) CrPC.
2. The refusal to live with the husband must be examined in light of whether the wife had sufficient reasons to stay away.
3. The evidence presented, including the husband's conduct and the wife's allegations of mistreatment, supported the conclusion that Reena had justifiable grounds for not returning to her matrimonial home.

The Bench also criticized the husband's inaction in seeking to enforce the restitution decree. It noted that he neither initiated execution proceedings nor pursued divorce under Section 13(1A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, suggesting an intent to avoid responsibility for his wife’s maintenance.

Verdict

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court restored the Family Court's order granting maintenance to Reena. It directed Dinesh to pay ₹10,000 per month from the date of the maintenance application, with arrears to be cleared in three equal installments by the end of 2025.

Cause Title: Rina Kumari vs Dinesh Kumar Mahto

Case No: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5896 of 2024

Date: January-10-2025

Bench: Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar

[Read/Download order]