Husband cannot evade maintenance obligation solely for disobeying restitution decree: Supreme Court – why the ruling is important
On 10th January 2025, the Supreme Court, in a historic ruling, reaffirmed the social-welfare character of maintenance laws and held that a husband cannot evade his maintenance obligation under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure merely by obtaining a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, even if the wife does not return to the matrimonial home thereafter.The Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was called upon to examine whether the grant of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, and the wife’s failure to comply with it, would automatically absolve the husband of his liability to pay maintenance under Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.Answering this question in the negative, the Court clarified that a wife’s non-compliance with such a decree does not, by itself, disentitle her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The Court further observed that provision is not punitive in nature, but protective.The Court drew a clear distinction between a “refusal” to live with the husband and mere non-compliance with a restitution decree, emphasizing that Section 125(4) CrPC is attracted only where the wife refuses to cohabit without sufficient cause. It held that failure to return to the matrimonial home, by itself, cannot be equated with such refusal, particularly where the circumstances justify the wife’s decision to live separately.Elaborating on this position, the Court observed that:“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. There can be no hard and fast rule in this regard and it must invariably depend on the distinctive facts and circumstances obtaining 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) Cr.P.C.”.Facts of the case:The appellant, Rina and the respondent No. 1 i.e., Dinesh Kumar Mahto, got married on 01.05.2014, but parted ways in August, 2015, following harassment, dowry demands and ill-treatment after which the wife started staying at her parental home.Dinesh (husband) subsequently instituted a suit seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Family Court at Ranchi. The said suit was decreed in his favor on 23.04.2022, directing Rina (wife) to resume conjugal life with him within two months. Rina, however, did not comply with the decree.Meanwhile, Rina had filed a maintenance application against Dinesh under Section 125 CrPC before the family court at Dhanbad. The Ld. Principal Judge of the Family Court, Dhanbad, on 15.02.2022, allowed the application and directed Dinesh to pay a Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance, noting that she had no independent income and that the husband, a government employee, had sufficient means.Challenging this order, Dinesh approached the Jharkhand High Court by way of Criminal Revision, whereby, on 04.09.2023, Ld. Single Judge of the High Court allowed the revision and set aside the maintenance awarded to Rina, placing reliance on the Family Court’s judgment dated 23.04.2022 in the restitution proceedings. The High Court held that Rina had withdrawn from the society of her husband without reasonable cause and had failed to return to the matrimonial home despite the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Since, the decree had not been challenged by her, the High Court concluded that the bar under Section 125(4) CrPC was attracted and denied her claim for maintenance.Aggrieved by the decision dated 04.09.2023 of the Jharkhand High Court, Rina approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The central question before the Supreme Court was whether a wife’s failure to cohabit with her husband and comply with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, without sufficient reason, by itself attracts the disqualification under Section 125(4) CrPC, denying her maintenance.Setting aside the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had gravely erred in denying Rina the maintenance granted by the Family Court. Relying on its earlier decisions in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse and Rajnesh v. Neha, the Court reiterated that Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice intended to prevent agony, destitution and vagrancy. The Court further underscored that maintenance proceedings are not punitive in nature but are meant to ensure that a deserted or dependent wife is able to live with dignity.The Court further observed that the 125 CrPC must be interpreted liberally to give effect to legislative intent, as held in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat and Another. It clarified that the mere existence of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not automatically bind a court adjudicating a maintenance claim, nor such a decree, by itself, cannot be used against the wife to deny maintenance or to attract the disqualification under Section w125(4) CrPC.While arriving at its decision the Court examined the husband’s conduct, including his failure to support his wife after she suffered a miscarriage and the ill-treatment she faced in the matrimonial home. The Court found that these factors justified the wife’s continued separation. It further noted that even after securing the restitution decree, the husband made no effort to execute it or to seek divorce on the ground of non-compliance. Further, the Court also took notice of the fact that Rina was fully dependent on her brother.Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment dated 04.09.2023 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand and restored the Family Court’s order dated 15.02.2022 granting maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month, payable from the date of the maintenance application and directed the Respondent No.1 (husband) to clear the arrears within specified timelines.Appearance:For Petitioner(s) Ms. Mohini Priya, AOR Ms. Sayesha Gambhir, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Anup Kumar, AOR Ms. Pragya Choudhary, Adv. Mrs. Neha Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Shivam Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shruti Singh, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Prasad Deo, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Standing Counsel, Adv. Ms. Madhusmita Bora, AOR Mr. Shiv Ram Sharma, Adv. Mr. Pawan Kishore Singh, Adv. Mr. Dipankar Singh, Adv. Mrs. Anupama Sharma, Adv.Citation: (2025) 3 SCC 33 Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena Versus Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato and another(Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)
