Wife Can Still Claim Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC despite Restitution of Conjugal Rights Decree: Supreme Court clarifies

WHETHER A HUSBAND, AFTER SECURING A DECREE FOR RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS, IS ABSOLVED OF PAYING MAINTENANCE TO HIS WIFE UNDER SECTION 125(4) CR.P.C. IF SHE REFUSES TO COMPLY WITH THE SAID DECREE ?

The bench of J. SANJIV KHANNA, C.J. AND J. SANJAY KUMAR of the Supreme Court held in the recent judgment of Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto, 2025 INSC 55, that maintenance proceedings u/S-125 Cr.P.C. are independent of restitution of conjugal rights proceedings and are not influenced by the findings in the latter. Mere existence of a restitution decree coupled with non-compliance of the same by the wife, does not automatically disqualify her from claiming maintenance u/S-125(4) Cr.P.C.?

The Court emphasized that the wife’s refusal to return to the matrimonial home must be examined in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly whether she had sufficient reason to refuse to live with her husband. In the present case, SC found the wife faced cruelty, neglect, and dowry demands, justifying her decision to live apart. The husband’s attempt to use the restitution decree as a shield to avoid his wife's maintenance? was rejected. Therefore, SC held that the husband could not be absolved from paying maintenance to his wife u/S-125(4). The judgment emphasised that S-125 CrPC is a measure of social justice aimed at protecting vulnerable wives from destitution.?

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

Marriage and Separation:

• Appellant (Reena) and Respondent No.1 (Dinesh) were married on 01.05.2014.
• They separated in August 2015, and Reena started living at her parental home.
• Dinesh filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights u/S-9 of HMA, 1955, in 2018, alleging that Reena left the matrimonial home w/o reasonable cause and that he attempted to bring her back but she refused to come.
• Reena contested the suit but did not appear before Family court. In her WS she claimed that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by Dinesh as he wanted dowry and had extramarital affairs. She also alleged Dinesh neglected her when she suffered a miscarriage in January 2015 and did not even come to see her. Further, she said that she was ready to return to the matrimonial home, if? Dinesh did not mistreat her and denied her basic facilities such as a gas stove, toilets.?

Court Proceedings:

• Family court, Ranchi said? evidence adduced by the Dinesh substantiated that he wants to cohabit with Reena. No evidence was adduced by Reena to prove her allegation of dowry, ill-treatment by Dinesh and his family members. Further noted that “there must be something more serious than the ordinary wear and tear of married life for a wife to withdraw from the society of her husband, thus the Family Court held in Dinesh's favour on? 23.04.2022, directed the Reena to resume conjugal life with him and ordered him to provide basic facilities such as a gas stove, toilets to her. However, Reena did not comply with this decree.
• Meanwhile, in August 2018, Rina filed a 498A IPC complaint, leading to Dinesh’s imprisonment and temporary job suspension.
• In August 2019, Rina filed a petition for maintenance u/S- 125 CrPC, which was allowed by the Family Court, Dhanbad on 15.02.2022, granting her ?10,000 per month as maintenance, noting that Dinesh had sufficient means but neglected to maintain her.
• Dinesh challenged the said maintenance order before the Jharkhand HC, which set aside the same, saying that Reena did not comply with the restitution decree or appeal against the same. Thus, she is disqualified from claiming maintenance u/S-125(4) Cr.P.C.
• Finally, Reena appealed to the Supreme Court against the aforesaid order of Jharkhand HC.

RELEVANT PROVISIONS:

• S - 9: provides if a spouse withdraws from the society of the other w/o reasonable excuse, the aggrieved spouse can file a petition in court for restitution of conjugal rights. The court will grant the same if it believes the claims are true and there’s no legal reason to deny the request. In case of dispute over whether the withdrawal was justified, the spouse who left must prove they had a reasonable excuse.
• S - 125 Cr.P.C.,1973: Obligates husband having sufficient means to provide? maintenance to his wives, children, and parents who are unable to maintain themselves
• S - 125(4):? Wife is not entitled to maintenance if she:

SC’ s OBSERVATION AND DECISION:

SC relying on the following precedents Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, Rajnesh v. Neha, Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, observed that:

1. Maintenance u/S - 125 of CrPC is a social measure aimed at preventing vagrancy and destitution of wives and children and is in line with Art-15(3) and Art-39 of the Constitution.
2. Maintenance is not just bare sustenance but ensures dignified living. Husband cannot claim financial inability as an excuse to deny maintenance.?
3. The wife has an absolute right to maintenance u/S-125 unless disqualified u/S-125(4).
4. Further, the bench referred to several conflicting judgments of various High Courts on similar issues namely, K. Narayana Rao v. Bhagyalakshmi, Sampuran Singh v. Gurdev Kaur, Amina Mohammedali Khoja v. Mohammedali Ramjanali? Khoja, Kavungal Kooppakkattu Zeenath v. Mundakkattu Sulfiker Ali,? Subal Das v. Mousumi Saha (Das), Babita v. Munna Lal, Shri Mudassir v. Shirin, Girishbhai Babubhai Raja v. Smt. Hansaben Girishchandra, Hem Raj v. Urmila Devi, Smt. S.R. Ashwini v. G. Harish,? Ravi Kumar v. Santosh Kumari. The Hon’ble Bench relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Amrita Singh v. Ratan Singh, Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat to arrive at the following conclusions:
5. Simply because the husband obtained the decree of restitution of conjugal rights and wife does not comply with the same, it does not automatically disqualify her from claiming maintenance u/S-125(4) CrPC.?
6. The Civil Court's judgment for restitution can only be treated as relevant evidentiary material but the conduct of the wife, i.e., whether she had sufficient reason to refuse to live with the husband, has to be assessed by the Magistrate and only thereafter, it could be decided whether she would be entitled to maintenance or not.
7. Wife can still claim maintenance in the presence? of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights if the conduct of the? husband is such that it obstructs her from obeying the decree.
8. Thus, for disqualification u/S-125(4) to apply, the court must independently assess facts of each case? (including husband conduct, wife circumstances, etc.) coupled with evidence adduced by parties? to determine whether the wife has sufficient reason to live apart from her husband.
9. SC observed that principle of civil judgment being binding in criminal cases does not apply to maintenance proceedings u/S- 125 of CrPC, as these proceedings are independent and do not arise from restitution of conjugal right cases. Further, clarified that maintenance proceeding u/S-125 are essentially civil in nature even though non-compliance attracts penal consequence (Mst. Jagir Kaur v. Jaswant Singh) and the reason for inclusion of the provisions dealing therewith in the Code of Criminal Procedure was clarified by the Law Commission of India in its 41st report i.e. to provide speedier and more economical remedy than that available in the Civil Courts, to destitute wives and children.?
10. SC observed that there is no statutory provision or legal principle that makes findings in one proceeding (civil or criminal) binding on the other. Each proceeding must be decided independently? based on the evidence presented in that specific case (Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah). The Court emphasizes that maintenance proceedings u/S-125 Cr.P.C. are independent of restitution of conjugal rights proceedings and should not be influenced by the findings in the latter.?
11. SC observed that mental cruelty is a state of mind caused by the behavioral pattern of one spouse towards the other. Further, emphasized that mental cruelty cannot be assessed in isolation but must be evaluated based on the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances (Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta). Applying this standard, the SC held that Dinesh’s conduct of neglecting Reena during her miscarriage, his failure to provide support to her despite having sufficient means, ill-treating her by denying her basic facilities (gas stove, toilets) in matrimonial home is a clear indication of mental cruelty she was subjected to by Dinesh. This conduct gave her just cause to refuse to return to the matrimonial home, despite the restitution decree.
12. Further, SC observed that Jharkhand HC erred by giving an undue weight to the? restitution decree,? while ignoring following key evidences:

• Dinesh failure to cross examiner's witness which effectively admitted her dependency?
• evidence of mental cruelty including Reena's miscarriage and? ill treatment.
• Moreover, after obtaining restitution decree, Dinesh made no attempt at reconciliation or to execute the said decree under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC nor did he seek a decree of divorce under Section 13(1A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.?

13. Lastly, The SC relying on aforementioned observations held that:

• Dinesh’s inaction was a strategic move to protect himself from Reena’s maintenance claim, as long as she did not attain the status of a divorced wife. This stalemate reflects Dinesh’s lack of bona fides and his attempt to disown his responsibility towards Reena.?
• Further said that Reena sufficient reason to not to join matrimonial home, despite the restitution decree, cannot be held against her. Thus, disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. does not apply to her.
• Accordingly, SC allowed the appeal, setting aside the Jharkhand HC’s judgment and restored the family court’s order granting maintenance of Rs. 10k/- per month.