Case Note & Summary
The case involves a husband, Ramkrushna Somaji Nadekar, who filed a criminal application challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, which directed him to pay maintenance of Rs. 1000 per month to his wife, respondent no. 1. The marriage took place on 19.6.2000, and a son was born. The wife left the matrimonial home without justifiable reason and did not return despite repeated calls. The husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights (Civil Suit No. 150A/03) before the Additional District Judge, Chindwara, which was decreed on 1.9.2005. Despite the decree, the wife failed to join the husband. Instead, she filed an application under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance for herself and her son before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Narkhed. The Magistrate rejected her claim for maintenance on 9.1.2008, holding that she failed to join the husband despite the decree and repeated calls. However, the Magistrate granted maintenance for the son, which the husband accepted. The wife filed a criminal revision (No. 218 of 2008) before the Additional Sessions Judge, who reversed the Magistrate's order and directed the husband to pay Rs. 1000 per month to the wife. The husband challenged this order in the present application. The High Court noted that the wife had a history of leaving the matrimonial home and did not honour the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. There was no evidence that the husband obstructed her compliance. The court held that a wife who flouts a decree for restitution of conjugal rights without justifiable reason is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The court set aside the Sessions Judge's order and restored the Magistrate's order rejecting the wife's maintenance claim.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Maintenance - Section 125 CrPC - Decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights - Wife flouting decree without justifiable reason is not entitled to maintenance - The court held that a wife who disobeys a decree for restitution of conjugal rights without any justifiable cause cannot claim maintenance from her husband, as she is not living separately due to his neglect or refusal. The burden is on the wife to show that the husband's conduct obstructed her compliance. (Paras 1, 5-6) B) Family Law - Restitution of Conjugal Rights - Effect on Maintenance - Qualification to Rule - The rule that a wife cannot claim maintenance in the presence of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights is qualified: she may still claim maintenance if the husband's conduct obstructs her obedience to the decree. However, in this case, there was no evidence of such obstruction. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a wife who has flouted a decree for restitution of conjugal rights for no justifiable reason is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the application, set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 20.2.2009, and restored the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Narkhed dated 9.1.2008 rejecting the wife's claim for maintenance.
Law Points
- Wife flouting decree for restitution of conjugal rights without justifiable reason is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC
- Decree for restitution of conjugal rights creates a bar to maintenance unless husband's conduct obstructs compliance
- Burden on wife to show justifiable cause for not joining husband despite decree
