Supreme Court Upholds Estranged Wife’s Right To Maintenance Despite Non-Compliance With Conjugal Rights Decree

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

The Supreme Court of India ruled that a husband’s decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not exempt him from paying maintenance if his wife refuses to return home. Each case must be assessed individually, and valid reasons for refusal, such as mistreatment, justify claims for maintenance, which the Supreme Court upheld in a recent case.

Supreme Court Upholds Estranged Wife’s Right to Maintenance Despite Non-Compliance with Conjugal Rights Decree

New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a husband’s decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not automatically absolve him of his obligation to pay maintenance if his wife refuses to return to the matrimonial home. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, emphasizes that each case must be evaluated on its unique facts and circumstances.

The bench addressed the question of whether a wife’s refusal to comply with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights disqualifies her from claiming maintenance under Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). After reviewing varied and conflicting judgments by multiple high courts, the bench concluded:

“The preponderance of judicial thought weighs in favour of upholding the wife’s right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, and the mere passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights at the husband’s behest and non-compliance therewith by the wife would not, by itself, be sufficient to attract the disqualification under Section 125(4) CrPC.”

The court emphasized that the wife’s refusal to live with her husband must be evaluated based on the material and evidence presented. Valid and sufficient reasons for her refusal, such as mistreatment or lack of basic amenities, could justify her claim for maintenance.

The case involved an estranged couple from Jharkhand who married on May 1, 2014, and parted ways in August 2015. The husband sought a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, claiming that his wife had left the matrimonial home and refused to return.

The wife, however, alleged that her husband subjected her to torture and mental agony, demanded a dowry of Rs 5 lakh for purchasing a car, and had extramarital relationships. She also cited her husband’s neglect during her miscarriage and raised concerns about basic living conditions at the matrimonial home, including being denied access to a toilet and proper cooking facilities.

The family court issued a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in March 2022, but the wife refused to return. Instead, she filed a plea for maintenance, which the family court granted, ordering the husband to pay her Rs 10,000 per month.

The husband challenged the maintenance order before the Jharkhand High Court, which ruled against the wife, stating that her non-compliance with the restitution decree disqualified her from receiving maintenance.

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, highlighting that the wife’s allegations of mistreatment, accepted in the restitution proceedings, justified her refusal to return. The bench noted:

“The fact that she was not allowed to use the toilet in the house or avail proper facilities to cook food in the matrimonial home are further indications of her ill-treatment.”

The apex court restored the family court’s order, directing the husband to pay Rs 10,000 per month as maintenance from the date of the wife’s application on August 3, 2019. Arrears of maintenance were to be cleared in three equal installments.