Wife can claim maintenance even if she does not comply with cohabitation decree: Supreme Court

Last update:January 11, 2025, 8:20 pm EST

The adjudicating panel stated that there are no rigid and established rules in this respect and it must always depend on the circumstances of the case.

Supreme Curt of India (file image)

In an important judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman may be entitled to maintenance from her husband even if she has not complied with the decision to live with her husband, if she has a valid and sufficient reason to refuse to live with him.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar decided a legal dispute on whether a husband who obtains a decree for restoration of conjugal rights is exempted by operation of law from paying maintenance to his wife if his wife refuses to comply with the said decree and return to the marital home.

The adjudicating panel stated that there are no hard and fast rules in this respect and it must invariably depend on the circumstances of the case.

The Court held that the question of whether the wife’s failure to comply with the order restoring conjugal rights would be sufficient in itself to deny her maintenance under Article 125 section 4 CrPC, was considered by several high courts but there was no consistent view soon as their opinions were varied and contradictory.

After analyzing various judgments of the high courts and the Supreme Court, the bench said: “The preponderance of judicial thought, therefore, supports the maintenance of the wife’s right to maintenance under Art. 125 CrPC and the mere issuance of a decree for restitution of marital rights at the behest of the husband and non-compliance thereof by the wife would not in itself be sufficient to cause disqualification under Section 125(1). 4 CrPC”. The bench said that it would depend on the facts of the particular case and a decision had to be taken on the basis of available materials and evidence as to whether the wife still had a valid and sufficient reason to refuse to live with her husband despite such a decree.

“There is no hard and fast rule in this regard and it must invariably depend on the specific facts and circumstances present in each particular case.

“In any event, the decree on the restoration of conjugal rights secured by the husband, coupled with the wife’s failure to do so, will not immediately determine either her right to alimony or the possibility of disqualification under Art. 125 section 4 CrPC,’ it said.

The bench issued an authoritative statement in the case of a Jharkhand couple who got married on May 1, 2014, but separated in August 2015.

The husband approached the family court in Ranchi seeking restoration of conjugal rights, alleging that she had left the matrimonial home on August 21, 2015 and had not returned since then despite repeated efforts to bring her back.

His wife, in her written statement filed before the family court, alleged that she was subjected to torture and mental agony by her husband, who demanded a dowry of Rs 5 lakh for purchasing a four-wheeler.

She alleged that he had extramarital relations and that she had a miscarriage on January 1, 2015, but her husband did not come to see her from his place of work.

The wife further claimed that she was willing to return to the shared apartment provided she was allowed to use the toilet in the house, which she had not been allowed before, and was allowed to use the LPG installation. stove to prepare meals, as she had to do it using wood and coal.

On March 23, 2022, the family court issued a decision to restore conjugal rights, at the same time noting that the husband wanted to live with her.

However, the wife did not comply with the judgment and instead filed a claim for alimony in the family court.

A family court ordered that her estranged husband pay him alimony of Rs 10,000 per month.

The husband then challenged the order in the Jharkhand High Court, which found that his wife had not returned to their marital home despite the decree restoring conjugal rights, which she had not chosen to challenge by way of appeal.

The Supreme Court ruled that the wife was not entitled to maintenance. The wife, concerned about the decision, appealed against the decision to the Supreme Court, which ruled in her favor.

The Supreme Court held that the high court should not have attached such undue importance to the said judgment and the findings therein.

The Court found that the fact that she was not allowed to use the toilet in the house or the appropriate facilities for cooking meals in the matrimonial home, which was accepted in the restitution proceedings, was a further indication of her ill-treatment.

“Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the judgment dated August 4, 2023 passed by the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi in…,” the bench said.

He added that the order of the family court dated February 15, 2022 is upheld and restored and ordered the husband to pay Rs 10,000 to his estranged wife.

“Such alimony would be due from the date of submission of the alimony application, i.e. from August 3, 2019. The arrears in alimony repayment will be payable in three equal installments…” it was written.

(This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a news agency feed – PTI)