Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on January 10, 2025, held that the mere passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights at the husband’s behest and non-compliance therewith by the wife would not, by itself, be sufficient to attract the disqualification under Section 125(4), CrPC to receive subsistence allowance from husband.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar said 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) CrPC," the bench said.

According to Section 125(4), CrPC, a wife is not entitled to receive maintenance from her husband if she refuses to live with him without a sufficient reason.

The court also clarified the two proceedings —one related to restitution of conjugal rights and another on maintenance under Section 125, CrPC— are altogether independent and are not directly or even indirectly connected, in the sense that proceedings under Section 125, CrPC do not arise from proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights.

The bench thus outrightly rejected a specious contention that the findings in the judgment for restitution of conjugal rights by the Family Court, being a Civil Court, would be binding on the court seized of the petition under Section 125, CrPC as they are to be treated as criminal proceedings.

"A decision by a criminal court would not bind the civil court while a decision by the civil court would bind the criminal court. However, maintenance proceedings are essentially civil in nature," the bench said.

The court also said nomenclature of maintenance proceedings initiated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, as those provisions find place therein, cannot be held to be conclusive as to the nature of such proceeding.

The standard of proof in civil proceedings is a preponderance of probabilities whereas, in criminal prosecution, conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, the bench pointed out.

"We do not think the said principle can be applied per se to proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC by relying upon a judgment passed by a Civil Court on an application for restitution of conjugal rights," the bench said.

The court allowed an appeal by a woman against the Jharkhand High Court's judgment and directed her husband to pay Rs 10,000 per month, payable from the date of filing of maintenance application.

The appellant woman left her matrimonial home in August 2015 after marriage on May 1, 2014, alleging physical and mental torture and demand of Rs five lakh, besides leveling other charges. The husband filed a plea for restitution of conjugal rights before a family court in Ranchi in 2018, which was decreed in his favour in 2022.

In 2018, the woman lodged a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC, resulting into judicial custody of husband who was suspended from her post as a junior engineer. In 2019, the woman also filed an application for maintenance under Section 125, CrPC, which was allowed. The husband was ordered to pay Rs 10,000 as monthly sum to her.

The husband approached the High Court which in 2022 held that the woman had withdrawn from her husband’s society without reasonable excuse and that she had not returned to the matrimonial home despite the said decree for restitution of conjugal rights, which she had not even chosen to challenge by way of appeal. The High Court reasoned that Section 125(4), CrPC would come to his aid and, in consequence, she would not be entitled to maintenance.

The apex court examined the question as to whether non compliance with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by a wife would be sufficient in itself to deny her maintenance, owing to Section 125(4), CrPC. The court noted the issue has been addressed by several High Courts but no consistent view is forthcoming, as their opinions were varied and conflicting.

Having examined the facts, including allegations of ill-treatment and denial to use the LPG stove and toilet, of the matter, the bench held the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights could not be held against the woman. In consequence, the disqualification under Section 125(4), CrPC was not attracted and the High Court erred grievously in applying the same and holding that the woman was not entitled to the maintenance granted to her by the family court, the court said.

In the case, the court noted, the husband sought to protect himself from a claim by the wife for maintenance by projecting the disobeyed restitution decree as a defence and as long as she did not attain the status of a divorced wife, that protection would endure to his benefit.

"This stalemate of sorts created by him clearly reflects his lack of bona fides and demonstrates his attempt to disown all responsibility towards his wife," the bench said.

Case Title: Rina Kumar @ Rina Devi @ Reena Vs Dinesh Kumar Mahato @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato and another