The Supreme Court has ruled that a wife can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC even if she refuses to live with her husband despite a decree for restitution of conjugal rights — reaffirming women’s right to financial security and social justice under Indian family law.
Introduction
In a landmark judgment promoting fairness and social welfare, the Supreme Court of India clarified that a wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) even if she refuses to live with her husband despite a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under the Hindu Marriage Act.
The ruling, delivered by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, safeguards the intent of Section 125 CrPC — to prevent destitution and ensure financial security for women.
Key Legal Issue
The Court examined an important question:
“Does a husband, after obtaining a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, get exempted from paying maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC if the wife refuses to live with him?”
The Supreme Court’s response was unambiguous — No. The Bench held that the wife’s refusal to return to the matrimonial home does not bar her right to maintenance if she has sufficient cause for living separately.
Facts of the Case
The husband, Dinesh, secured a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, while his wife, Reena, chose not to return to live with him.
Evidence revealed that after Reena suffered a miscarriage, she was mistreated and neglected in her matrimonial home. The Court found that such treatment gave her just cause to live separately.
Despite this, the husband attempted to use the restitution decree as a legal defence to deny maintenance, an approach the Court described as lacking good faith.
Supreme Court’s Observations
Justice Sanjay Kumar, delivering the judgment, held:
- A wife’s refusal to live with her husband for just cause does not disqualify her from claiming maintenance.
- The purpose of Section 125 CrPC is to prevent destitution — it cannot be used as a tool to penalize a woman.
- The husband’s conduct must be examined to determine whether the wife had valid reasons for living apart.
The Court observed:
“Her refusal to live with him, despite the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, cannot be held against her. Therefore, the disqualification under Section 125(4) CrPC does not apply.”
Final Judgment and Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the Jharkhand High Court’s judgment that had denied maintenance to the wife.
It restored the Family Court’s order, directing the husband to pay ₹10,000 per month as maintenance.
The Court clarified:
- A restitution decree does not automatically absolve a husband from his responsibility to maintain his wife.
- Each case must be decided on its unique facts and evidence.
- Section 125 CrPC is a welfare provision, meant to ensure no woman is left destitute or homeless.
Important Case Laws Cited
- Kirtikant D. Vadodaria vs. State of Gujarat (1996) 4 SCC 479
- Section 125 CrPC should be interpreted liberally to fulfill its purpose of preventing destitution.
- Amrita Singh vs. Ratan Singh (2018) 9 SCC 694
- Non-compliance with a restitution decree does not automatically disqualify a wife from maintenance.
These precedents were used to highlight that maintenance rights depend on just cause, not on blind compliance with matrimonial decrees.
Legal Significance
This judgment reinforces the welfare-oriented intent of Section 125 CrPC.
It prevents misuse of restitution decrees as a defence by husbands and ensures financial protection for women in marital disputes.
The ruling upholds the constitutional principles of equality and dignity, confirming that maintenance is a social responsibility, not merely a marital duty.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling serves as a strong message that maintenance cannot be denied to a woman merely because she lives separately after mistreatment or neglect.
By upholding her right under Section 125 CrPC, the Court reaffirmed that justice must align with compassion, and that marriage cannot strip a woman of her financial independence or dignity.
Supreme Court Flags Rising Trend of False Rape Cases Based on Broken Promises of Marriage
