Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Orissa High Court has held that a husband’s unsubstantiated accusations of infidelity constitute sufficient cause for the wife to live separately, while also entitling her to maintenance.

A Single judge bench comprising Justice G. Satapathy, observed: “It is quite natural for a wife to refuse to live with her husband who doubted her chastity, inasmuch as the chastity of a woman is not only dearest to her, but also is a priceless possession in her. Thus, when the character of wife being doubted by her husband without any proof, she has enough reason to live separately from her husband.”

The court’s observation came while dismissing a revision petition challenging a Family Court order that awarded ₹3,000 monthly maintenance to a wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The petitioner husband, Indrajit Mohanta, and his wife, Mamuni Mohanta, were married on May 5, 2021. Following marital discord, the wife left her matrimonial home on August 28, 2021, and filed for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, citing her inability to support herself. During the proceedings in the Family Court, the wife testified about her husband’s baseless allegations regarding her character. The husband denied her claims, accusing her of infidelity but failing to produce evidence. The Family Court, relying on the evidence presented, directed the husband to pay ₹3,000 per month in maintenance from December 20, 2021. Aggrieved by this decision, the husband filed a revision petition in the High Court.

The court identified two key issues:

1. Whether the wife was justified in living separately?
2. Whether the quantum of maintenance was excessive?

The court noted: “In this case, without producing any proof about the infidelity of his wife, the husband has simply made character assassination of his wife which itself is a ground for wife to refuse to live with her husband. Hence, the plea of the husband in this case about wife not staying with him without any sufficient cause is liable to be rejected and merits no consideration.”

On the second issue, the court noted that the husband, a skilled labourer earning ₹9,000 per month, could reasonably provide ₹3,000 as maintenance. “It is quite clear that the wife is entitled to be maintained commensurate to the standard of living of her husband,” stated the court.

The court in conclusion held that Family Court’s decision was proportionate and fair, while dismissing the revision petition, and upholding the maintenance order.

 

Cause Title: Indrajit Mohanta v Mamuni Mohanta [RPFAM No.9 of 2024]

Apperances: For Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Dash, Advocate; For Opposite Party : Mr. B.K. Mishra, Advocate