Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Indore bench has ruled that a mere decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the wife, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), does not disqualify her from claiming maintenance from her husband.

A Single judge bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh, upheld the Family Court's maintenance order awarding ₹6,000 per month to the wife and ₹5,000 for their daughter, observing that : “There is no express bar to grant maintenance to a wife, against whom a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been passed. There is, therefore, no bar to entertain application for grant of maintenance.”

The court was hearing a dispute involving the petitioner-husband, and the respondent-wife, married in 2010 under Hindu rites. The couple lived in Khandwa with their 11-year-old daughter. Trouble arose when the wife moved to Ujjain in 2018 and refused to return to Khandwa. The husband sought restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of HMA, and obtained an ex-parte decree. The wife, in turn, filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), alleging cruelty and financial neglect. The Family Court awarded maintenance to her and their daughter.

The husband, however, contested the order, arguing that the wife's refusal to obey the decree for restitution disqualified her from maintenance. It was also claimed that she had no valid grounds to live separately and that the maintenance award was unjustified.

The court clarified that “Only getting the decree under Section 9 of HMA is not sufficient to prove that wife has no sufficient reason to live separate from her husband.”

Relying on the Delhi High Court’s ruling in Babita vs. Munna Lal [2022], the court reiterated that a husband’s conduct and behaviour are critical in determining a wife's entitlement to live separately and claim maintenance. “The mere presence of a decree of restitution of conjugal rights against the wife does not disentitle her to claim maintenance if the conduct of the husband is such as to ensure that she is unable to obey such a decree or it was the husband who had created such circumstances that she could not stay with him,” the court observed.

The court reiterated the well-established principle that a wife is entitled to a financial status comparable to that of her husband. The court highlighted that the phrase “unable to maintain herself” under Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not imply that a wife must be completely destitute to be eligible for maintenance, finding that in the present case, the respondent-wife successfully demonstrated her inability to sustain herself. “Certainly, she would get only the maintenance amount from her husband which is neither luxurious nor penurious but in any way, it should be in accordance with financial status of husband,” the court said.

Referring to Rajnesh v. Neha & Ors. [2021], the court noted : “The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meager that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort.”

Consequently, the court deemed the maintenance amount granted by the Family Court to be “just and proper” and requiring no interference.

 

Cause Title: Deepak Neelkanth v Priyanka Neelkanth and Ors. [CRR No. 34 of 2023]

Appearance: Advocate Swati Sharma - for the petitioner; and
Advocate Gopal Singh Bhadoria - learned counsel for the respondents.