In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has declared that a husband cannot evade his duty to provide maintenance simply because his wife chooses not to reside with him, even when a decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been issued against her. The ruling reinforces the principles of social justice embedded in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
The Case
The bench, led by the Chief Justice and Justice Sanjay Kumar, tackled a critical question: Can a husband who secures a decree for restitution of conjugal rights escape his obligation to maintain his wife if she refuses to return to the matrimonial home?
The answer was unequivocal. The Court emphasized that a wife’s refusal to comply with such a decree does not, by default, disqualify her from claiming maintenance. The judgment noted that the decree itself does not exonerate the husband from his responsibilities under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which seeks to prevent destitution and ensure dignity for women.
Context Matters: Grounds for Separation
The Court observed that the wife, Reena, had valid reasons for not returning to her husband, Dinesh. Following a traumatic miscarriage and ill-treatment at her marital home, her decision to stay away was deemed justifiable. Consequently, the disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., which bars maintenance claims in cases of unjustified separation, did not apply.
Justice Kumar pointed out that Dinesh’s reliance on the restitution decree was a strategy to shirk responsibility. The Court highlighted the importance of evaluating each case based on its unique circumstances, rather than applying rigid rules.
Upholding the Family Court’s Ruling
Reinstating the Family Court’s decision, the Supreme Court directed Dinesh to pay Reena a monthly maintenance of ₹10,000. It clarified that a restitution decree is only one factor in assessing maintenance claims and cannot override legitimate reasons for a wife’s decision to live apart.
A Reminder of the Law’s Intent
Reiterating past precedents, the Court underscored that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a safeguard against poverty and vagrancy. It is applicable irrespective of ongoing disputes or marital status, and even divorced wives may qualify under certain conditions.
The ruling is a resounding affirmation of the legal system’s commitment to upholding the rights and dignity of women, sending a clear message that maintenance obligations are not conditional on a wife’s compliance with a restitution decree.
