SC: Wife can get maintenance even if she defies cohabit decree

It said the question as to whether noncompliance 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) of CrPC has been addressed by several high courts but no consistent view is forthcoming, due to varied and conflicting opinions. The bench said, “Thus, the preponderance of judicial thought weighs in favour of upholding the wife’s right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and 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.”

It said it would depend on individual cases and would have to be decided on the evidence available, whether the wife still had valid reason to refuse to live with her spouse, 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,” it said.

The bench gave the order, in the case of an estranged couple from Jharkhand, who entered into the wedlock on May 1, 2014 but parted ways in August, 2015.

The husband moved the family court in Ranchi for restitution of conjugal rights claiming that she left her matrimonial home on August 21, 2015 and did not return despite repeated efforts to bring her back. His wife, in her written submission before the court, alleged that she was subjected to torture and mental agony by her husband, who demanded `5 lakh for purchasing a four wheeler. She also claimed he had extramarital relations and she suffered a miscarriage in January 1, 2015 but her husband did not come to see her.

The wife claimed that she was willing to return on the condition that she should be allowed to use the washroom in the house and should also be allowed to use an LPG stove to prepare food.

The family court on March 23, 2022, gave a decree for restitution of conjugal rights while noting that the husband wanted to live with her. The wife did not abide and instead filed a plea for maintenance with the family court.

The family court ordered maintenance of Rs 10,000 per month to be paid to the wife. The husband the challenged the order before the Jharkhand HC, which noted that his wife had not returned to the matrimonial home despite the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The HC ruled that the wife was not entitled to maintenance. Aggrieved by the order, the wife challenged the order before the apex court, which ruled in its favour.

The top court said the high court ought not to have given such undue weightage to the said judgment and the findings therein.

It said the fact that she was not allowed to use the toilet in the house or avail proper facilities to cook food in the matrimonial home, facts which were accepted in the restitution proceedings, are further indications of her ill-treatment.

It said the order of family court order dated February 15, 2022 is upheld and restored and directed the husband to pay `10,000 to his estranged wife.