The Supreme Court, in a recent ruling, clarified that a wife’s refusal to comply with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not automatically disqualify her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
The bench, consisting of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, addressed the issue of whether a husband, who secures a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, is absolved from paying maintenance if his wife refuses to return to the matrimonial home.
Justice Sanjay Kumar, who authored the judgment, stated that a wife’s refusal to comply with such a decree for just cause would not bar her from seeking maintenance from her husband. The case involved a wife, Reena, who had suffered a miscarriage and faced mistreatment at her matrimonial home. The Court ruled that Reena had sufficient cause not to return, emphasizing that the husband's neglect and mistreatment were critical factors in this decision.
The Court observed that the husband, Dinesh, attempted to avoid his responsibility to provide maintenance by using the disobeyed decree as a defence. The Court noted that his behaviour showed a lack of good faith, and the stalemate created by his actions demonstrated his attempt to shirk his duties towards his wife. The Court concluded that Reena’s refusal to live with her husband, despite the decree, could not be held against her.
The Court overturned the Jharkhand High Court's decision that had denied Reena maintenance and upheld the Family Court's order to provide Rs. 10,000 per month. The Court emphasized that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not automatically absolve the husband of his responsibility to maintain his wife. It further clarified that Section 125 is a social justice provision, intended to prevent destitution, and applies regardless of ongoing marital disputes.
In its judgment, the Court referenced previous rulings, including Kirtikant D. Vadodaria vs. State of Gujarat (1996) and Amrita Singh vs. Ratan Singh (2018), stating that non-compliance with a restitution decree by the wife would not automatically disqualify her from maintenance. It stressed that each case must be evaluated on its individual facts, considering whether the wife still had valid reasons to refuse to live with her husband.
The ruling reinforces the Court's commitment to ensuring financial security for wives, even in cases involving marital disputes or non-compliance with conjugal rights decrees.
Also Read: No Error Found: Supreme Court Denies Same-Sex Marriage Review