Wife Wins Right to Maintenance Even If She Refuses Husband
The Supreme Court has clarified that a husband’s responsibility to provide maintenance to his wife is not nullified by a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. Even if the wife refuses to return to the matrimonial home, she can still claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Supreme Court’s Observations
Justice Sanjay Kumar, who gave the ruling, highlighted the following important points:
- Social Justice Provision: Section 125 CrPC is a social justice measure designed to prevent destitution and vagrancy. Its primary goal is to ensure financial support for dependent individuals, including wives, even amid marital disputes.
- Validity of Wife’s Reasons: The court stated that a wife’s refusal to comply with a restitution decree is not an automatic disqualification for maintenance. The reasons for living separately must be evaluated independently.
- Facts of Each Case: The court underscored that each case must be judged based on its unique circumstances, and there is no universal rule for denying maintenance in such situations.
Husband’s Neglect Highlighted
In this case, the husband had neglected the wife during a challenging period after she suffered a miscarriage. This neglect, combined with mistreatment in the matrimonial home, gave the wife valid reasons to live separately. The court found the husband’s defence of using the restitution decree to avoid his maintenance obligations unconvincing and lacking good faith.
Key Legal Question
The central issue before the court was:
Can a husband stop paying maintenance to his wife if she refuses to live with him after a court order for them to reunite?
Background of the Case
The case arose from an appeal filed by a wife, referred to as the appellant, challenging a Jharkhand High Court decision that denied her maintenance. The court’s verdict came after the husband secured a decree for restitution of conjugal rights but used it as a defence to avoid providing financial support.
The woman had left her husband’s home because she was treated badly after having a miscarriage. The Supreme Court decided that she had good reasons for not going back to her husband, so she is entitled to financial support.
Supreme Court's Decision
The court overturned the Jharkhand High Court’s ruling and upheld the Family Court’s earlier decision to grant the wife ₹10,000 per month as maintenance. The court clarified that:
- The husband and wife to live together does not free the husband from his duty to financially support his wife.
- A wife’s reasons for living separately must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
- Even divorced wives may be entitled to maintenance under specific conditions.
Landmark Precedents
The court referred to earlier rulings, including Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v/s State of Gujarat (1996) and Amrita Singh v/s Ratan Singh (2018), to affirm that a restitution decree alone cannot disqualify a wife from claiming maintenance.
Conclusion
This ruling reinforces the principle that Section 125 CrPC is a safeguard for vulnerable individuals, especially wives, ensuring their financial security regardless of marital conflicts. It sends a clear message that financial carelessness disguised as legal orders will not be accepted.
The court’s judgment is a step toward protecting the rights and dignity of women while ensuring that justice is not compromised by technicalities.
Source: Inputs from various media Sources
I’m a pharmacist with a strong background in health sciences. I hold a BSc from Delhi University and a pharmacy degree from PDM University. I write articles and daily health news while interviewing doctors to bring you the latest insights. In my free time, you’ll find me at the gym or lost in a sci-fi novel.
