Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rina Kumari (wife), and respondent No. 1, Dinesh Kumar Mahto (husband), were married on 01.05.2014 and separated in August 2015. The husband filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which was decreed on 23.04.2022. The wife did not comply with the decree. Meanwhile, the wife had filed a complaint under Section 498A IPC and a maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC. The Family Court, Dhanbad, allowed maintenance at ₹10,000 per month from 03.08.2019. The husband challenged this in criminal revision before the Jharkhand High Court, which allowed the revision, holding that the wife's refusal to return to the matrimonial home despite the decree disentitled her to maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC. The Supreme Court allowed the wife's appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and restoring the Family Court's maintenance order. The Court held that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not automatically bar maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC. The wife's refusal must be without 'reasonable excuse'. The burden is on the husband to prove that the wife's refusal is wilful and without reasonable cause. The Court noted that the wife had alleged cruelty and dowry demand, which were not adjudicated in the restitution suit. The object of Section 125 CrPC is to prevent vagrancy and destitution, and it is a measure of social justice. The Court directed the husband to pay maintenance at ₹10,000 per month from the date of application, with arrears to be paid within three months.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Maintenance - Section 125(4) CrPC - Effect of Decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights - The question was whether a decree for restitution of conjugal rights automatically disentitles a wife to maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC if she refuses to return. The Supreme Court held that the wife's refusal must be without 'reasonable excuse'; the decree does not ipso facto bar maintenance. The husband must prove that the wife's refusal is wilful and without reasonable cause. The Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the Family Court's maintenance order. (Paras 2, 14-20) B) Criminal Law - Maintenance - Section 125 CrPC - Object and Purpose - The provision is a measure of social justice to prevent vagrancy and destitution of wives, children, and parents. It provides a speedy and economical remedy. The Court emphasized that the husband cannot take subterfuge to deprive the wife of maintenance. (Paras 9-13) C) Family Law - Restitution of Conjugal Rights - Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Effect on Maintenance - A decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not automatically prove that the wife's refusal to live with her husband is without reasonable excuse. The Family Court's finding in the restitution suit is not conclusive in maintenance proceedings. The wife's allegations of cruelty and dowry demand must be considered. (Paras 5, 14-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a husband who secures a decree for restitution of conjugal rights is absolved from paying maintenance to his wife under Section 125(4) CrPC if the wife refuses to abide by the decree and return to the matrimonial home.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the Family Court's order dated 15.02.2022 directing the husband to pay maintenance of ₹10,000 per month from 03.08.2019. The husband was directed to pay the arrears within three months.
Law Points
- Section 125(4) CrPC does not automatically disentitle a wife from maintenance merely because a decree for restitution of conjugal rights exists against her
- the wife's refusal must be without 'reasonable excuse'
- the burden is on the husband to prove that the wife's refusal is wilful and without reasonable cause
- the object of Section 125 CrPC is to prevent vagrancy and destitution
- maintenance is a measure of social justice.
