“There is no hard and fast rule that husband can deny maintenance to wife merely because she doesn't live with him”, the Court said.
The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed its commitment to safeguarding the rights and dignity of married women. . In a significant ruling, the court held that a wife is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband even if she does not reside with him, despite the existence of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.
The Supreme Court in case Rina Kumari vs. Dinesh Kumar Mahto 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 47 and another with bench comprising of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, examined whether a husband could evade his responsibility to pay maintenance to his wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by citing her refusal to comply with a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. The bench delivered a judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Kumar, addressing the interplay between matrimonial disputes and maintenance obligations.
Understanding Restitution of Conjugal Rights:
Restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act allows a spouse to seek a court order compelling the other to resume cohabitation. A decree for restitution implies one spouse has unreasonably withdrawn from the other's company. However, it does not force a wife to live with her husband if valid reasons like cruelty or hardship exist. The Supreme Court emphasized that such decrees cannot override a wife's right to dignity and maintenance.
Legal Provisions:
1. Section 125 Cr.P.C.: Provides for maintenance to wives, children, and parents who are unable to maintain themselves. Sub-section (4) disqualifies a wife from maintenance if she refuses to live with her husband without sufficient cause.
2. Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Allows a spouse to seek restitution of conjugal rights if the other spouse withdraws from their society without reasonable cause
Legal Questions Before the Court:
Can a husband, who has secured a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, avoid paying maintenance to his wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. if she refuses to return to the matrimonial home?
Key Observations by the Supreme Court:
A wife's refusal to comply with a restitution of conjugal rights decree, if based on justifiable cause, does not disqualify her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In this case, the wife, Reena, had sufficient cause to refuse to live with her husband, Dinesh, citing his neglect and ill-treatment after her miscarriage. The Court emphasized that every case must be assessed on its facts. The passing of a restitution of conjugal rights decree does not automatically absolve the husband of his responsibility to pay maintenance.
The Court referred to following judgement:
- Kirtikant D. Vadodaria vs. State of Gujarat (1996): Maintenance eligibility depends on specific circumstances, not the mere passing of a decree.
- Amrita Singh vs. Ratan Singh (2018): Non-compliance with a restitution decree does not automatically bar maintenance claims.
Therefore, the husband’s lack of genuine effort to resolve marital issues was highlighted as a factor. The Court found his reliance on the restitution decree to avoid maintenance unjustifiable.
Thus, The Supreme Court allowed the wife’s appeal, the Court clarified that the decree of restitution of conjugal rights could serve as evidence but not as a conclusive determinant of maintenance eligibility.
Conclusion:
This landmark ruling is a reminder of the judiciary’s commitment to protecting the rights of vulnerable individuals, especially women. By prioritizing the welfare objective of maintenance laws, the Court has ensured that social justice remains at the forefront of legal interpretation. It strengthens the social justice framework under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It ensures that women are not deprived of financial support due to rigid interpretations of matrimonial laws
