Supreme Court Upholds Social Welfare Character of Maintenance Laws in Landmark Ruling
In a historic judgment delivered on January 10, 2025, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed the social-welfare character of maintenance laws, establishing crucial protections for women in matrimonial disputes. The court 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.
Bench Examines Critical Legal Question
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 subsequent 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 this provision is not punitive in nature, but protective, designed to prevent destitution and ensure dignity.
Court Draws Crucial Distinction
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."
Case Background and Legal Journey
The case involved appellant Rina and respondent Dinesh Kumar Mahto, who married on May 1, 2014, but separated in August 2015 following allegations of harassment, dowry demands, and ill-treatment. The wife subsequently began staying at her parental home.
Dinesh instituted a suit seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Family Court at Ranchi. The suit was decreed in his favor on April 23, 2022, directing Rina to resume conjugal life within two months. However, Rina did not comply with this decree.
Meanwhile, Rina had filed a maintenance application against Dinesh under Section 125 CrPC before the family court at Dhanbad. On February 15, 2022, the Principal Judge of the Family Court allowed the application and directed Dinesh to pay Rs. 10,000 per month as maintenance, noting that she had no independent income while the husband, a government employee, had sufficient means.
High Court's Decision and Supreme Court Intervention
Challenging this order, Dinesh approached the Jharkhand High Court through Criminal Revision. On September 4, 2023, a Single Judge of the High Court allowed the revision and set aside the maintenance awarded to Rina, relying on the Family Court's judgment in the restitution proceedings. The High Court held that Rina had withdrawn from her husband's society without reasonable cause and failed to return despite the decree.
Aggrieved by this decision, Rina approached the Supreme Court. The central question before the apex 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.
Supreme Court's Comprehensive Analysis
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 observed that Section 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 can such a decree, by itself, be used against the wife to deny maintenance or to attract the disqualification under Section 125(4) CrPC.
Examination of Husband's Conduct and Circumstances
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. The Court also took notice of the fact that Rina was fully dependent on her brother for support.
Final Judgment and Directions
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment dated September 4, 2023 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand and restored the Family Court's order dated February 15, 2022 granting maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month. The court directed that payments be made from the date of the maintenance application and ordered the husband to clear all arrears within specified timelines.
This landmark judgment reinforces the protective nature of maintenance laws in India and establishes important safeguards for women facing matrimonial disputes, ensuring that legal technicalities do not override fundamental rights to dignity and support.
