Supreme Court Clarifies Maintenance Rights Over Marital Obligation

Introduction

While navigating through the complex and contentious intersection of marital obligations and maintenance rights, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Rina Kumari v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto[i], examined the critical issue of how a wife’s non-compliance with an order of restitution of conjugal rights after her maintenance application under s. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’).

Brief Facts

The brief facts of the matter are as follows:

• Reena (‘Appellant’) and Dinesh Kumar Mahto (‘Respondent’) got married in 2014 and separated in August 2015, after which the Appellant began living with her parents.
• The Respondent filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights under s. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, claiming that the Appellant had left her matrimonial house in 2015 and had not returned since then.
• While the Respondent contended that he had made reconciliatory efforts to bring the Appellant back, she refused to return. The Appellant had, while relying upon her parents’ old age, tried to justify her absence. However, she also submitted that the Respondent used to torture her for dowry and had an extramarital affair as well.
• After submitting a written statement, the Appellant failed to appear before the Family Court. Consequently, in 2022, the court decreed in favour of the Respondent, directing the Appellant to resume conjugal life within two months, which she did not do.
• Prior to this decree, the Appellant lodged multiple cases against the Respondent, including one that led to his temporary incarceration and job loss.
• The Family Court allowed the Appellant’s maintenance application under s. 125 of the CrPC and ordered the Respondent to pay Rs. 10,000 per month from the date of filing in 2019.
• The High Court reversed this order, holding that the Appellant was not entitled to maintenance as she had left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and failed to comply with the restitution decree.
• Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the Appellant appealed before the Supreme Court.

Held

• The Supreme Court, after analysing various judgments, observed that a wife’s right to maintenance under s. 125 of the CrPC would not be affected by the mere passing of a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. Non-compliance with such a decree by the wife would not, by itself, disqualify her from receiving maintenance under s. 125(4) of the CrPC.
• The Court scrutinised the Respondent’s conduct and found that he had failed to fulfil his marital responsibilities. His actions lacked bona fides. The Appellant’s refusal to resume conjugal relations was justified by his emotional cruelty, including his failure to visit her after her miscarriage and his refusal to provide basic amenities, such as access to the toilet within the house. Even after obtaining the restitution decree, the Respondent made no effort to have it executed. This demonstrated his intent to disown the Appellant, thereby validating her decision to stay away.
• Based on these observations, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the Respondent to pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month retroactively to the date of the maintenance application.

Our Analysis

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the present matter sets an important precedent by reconciling divergent legal views on this issue. It clarifies that a wife’s right to maintenance under s. 125 of the CrPC is unaffected by a decree of restitution of conjugal rights obtained by the husband. The wife cannot be disentitled from receiving maintenance solely due to non-compliance with such a decree under the provisions mentioned in s. 125(4) of the CrPC.

S. 125(4) of the CrPC provides that maintenance may be denied to a wife if she refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason. However, this provision has sometimes been misused to deny maintenance solely on the basis of non-compliance with a restitution decree. Under the guise of this procedural safeguard, wives have been unfairly denied maintenance without proper inquiry into the circumstances justifying their refusal to cohabit.

The purpose of granting maintenance to a wife under s. 125 of the CrPC is to alleviate the mental agony and financial distress of a woman compelled to leave her matrimonial home. It ensures that she can live a dignified life thereafter. Since the right to seek maintenance directly impacts a person’s fundamental right to life, this right should not be easily overridden by a decree from another court, particularly if that court was not fully aware of the complete facts or circumstances compelling the wife’s separation.

Maintenance may rightly be denied if a wife lives apart without sufficient cause. However, it is unjust to automatically equate non-compliance with a restitution decree with an absence of sufficient cause. In many instances, the husband's conduct makes it impossible for the wife to resume marital life, even if it leads to defiance of a court order.

The provision for maintenance aims to protect a woman from destitution and to uphold her dignity after separation. As the Supreme Court rightly noted, the fundamental right to life includes financial security, and no court decree should arbitrarily deprive her of this essential right.

End Note

[i]?2025 SCC OnLine SC 72 dated 10.01.2025.

Authored by Anshi Bhatia , Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinions.