Wife’s Right to Maintenance Upheld: Supreme Court Rules on Section 125 CrPC and Restitution Decrees (2025)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, despite a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against her.

CASE TYPE: Criminal

Case Name: Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena vs. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato and another

[Judgment Date]: January 10, 2025

Date of the Judgment: January 10, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 55
Judges: Sanjiv Khanna, CJI, and Sanjay Kumar, J.
Can a husband avoid paying maintenance to his wife simply because she refuses to return to the matrimonial home after a court has ordered restitution of conjugal rights? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, clarifying the interplay between maintenance rights and restitution decrees. The court held that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not automatically disqualify a wife from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The bench comprised Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, with Justice Sanjay Kumar authoring the judgment.

Case Background

Rina Kumari (the appellant) and Dinesh Kumar Mahto (respondent No. 1) were married on May 1, 2014. They separated in August 2015, with Rina moving to her parental home. Dinesh filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights on July 20, 2018, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, claiming Rina had left without reason. Rina countered, alleging torture, dowry demands, and extramarital affairs by Dinesh. She stated she was willing to return if these issues were addressed. Despite her written statement, Rina did not appear before the Family Court.

On April 23, 2022, the Family Court, Ranchi, ruled in favor of Dinesh, directing Rina to return within two months. Rina did not comply. Meanwhile, Rina had filed a complaint against Dinesh under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on August 10, 2018, leading to his imprisonment and suspension from service. She also filed a maintenance case on August 3, 2019, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The Family Court, Dhanbad, granted Rina maintenance of ₹10,000 per month on February 15, 2022, noting Dinesh’s neglect despite his income.

Dinesh challenged this order in the Jharkhand High Court. The High Court, on August 4, 2023, reversed the Family Court’s decision, holding that Rina’s refusal to comply with the restitution decree disqualified her from maintenance under Section 125(4) of the CrPC. Rina then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Family Court in Ranchi initially decreed restitution of conjugal rights in favor of Dinesh, noting that he had attempted to bring his wife back. However, the Family Court in Dhanbad, in a separate proceeding, granted maintenance to Rina, observing that Dinesh had neglected to maintain her despite having sufficient means. The Jharkhand High Court overturned the maintenance order, stating that Rina’s refusal to comply with the restitution decree disqualified her from receiving maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC. The Supreme Court then heard Rina’s appeal against the High Court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The core of this case revolves around Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which provides for maintenance of wives, children, and parents. Specifically, Section 125(1) CrPC states:

“If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to pay a monthly allowance for her maintenance.”

However, Section 125(4) CrPC outlines exceptions where a wife is not entitled to maintenance:

“No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance… from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.”

The Supreme Court also considered the historical context of these provisions, noting that Section 125 CrPC is analogous to Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Law Commission of India’s 41st Report highlighted that the inclusion of maintenance provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code aimed to provide a speedier and more economical remedy than civil courts, preventing starvation and vagrancy.

The Court emphasized that Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice, enacted to protect women and children, aligning with Article 15(3) and Article 39 of the Constitution of India.

Arguments

Appellant (Rina Kumari)’s Submissions:

• Rina argued that the High Court erred in denying her maintenance solely based on her non-compliance with the restitution decree. She contended that she had sufficient reasons to refuse to live with her husband due to his past behavior, including demands for dowry, ill-treatment, and mental cruelty.

• She highlighted that she was not cross-examined in the maintenance proceedings, and the evidence she presented regarding her dependence on her brother and the miscarriage was not rebutted.

• She asserted that the restitution decree was obtained ex-parte and that Dinesh did not make any genuine efforts to reconcile or execute the decree.

Respondent (Dinesh Kumar Mahto)’s Submissions:

• Dinesh argued that the restitution decree passed by the Civil Court was binding and that Rina’s refusal to comply with it disqualified her from receiving maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC.

• He claimed he was ready and willing to keep Rina with full dignity, but she refused to return without sufficient reason.

• He contended that he was not liable to pay maintenance from the date of filing of the petition as he was suspended from service due to the case under Section 498A IPC filed by her.

The innovativeness of Rina’s argument lies in her assertion that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights should not automatically bar a wife’s claim for maintenance, especially when there are justifiable reasons for her refusal to return to her husband’s home. She highlighted the importance of considering the circumstances leading to her separation and the mental cruelty she faced, which were not adequately addressed by the lower courts.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the central issue as:

1. Whether a husband, who secures a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, stands absolved of paying maintenance to his wife by virtue of Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if his wife refuses to abide by the said decree and return to the matrimonial home?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered several cases and legal provisions to reach its decision. The authorities are categorized below by the legal point they address:

On the Object and Purpose of Section 125 CrPC:

• Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai [(2008) 2 SCC 316]: The Supreme Court held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for neglect but to prevent vagrancy and destitution, especially for women and children.
• Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena and others [(2015) 6 SCC 353]: The Supreme Court observed that Section 125 CrPC was conceived to ameliorate the agony and financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for valid reasons.
• Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse and another [(2014) 1 SCC 188]: The Supreme Court held that the provision of maintenance aims at empowering the destitute and achieving social justice.
• Rajnesh vs. Neha and another [(2021) 2 SCC 324]: The Supreme Court emphasized that maintenance laws were enacted as a measure of social justice to provide recourse to dependent wives and children for their financial support.
• Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan [(2015) 5 SCC 705]: The Supreme Court noted that the fundamental principle behind Section 125 CrPC is to ameliorate the financial state of affairs and mental agony of a woman compelled to leave her matrimonial home.

On the Interpretation of Section 125(4) CrPC and Restitution Decrees:

• K. Narayana Rao vs. Bhagyalakshmi [1983 SCC OnLine Kar 190]: The Karnataka High Court held that a court dealing with a maintenance claim must examine a restitution decree but is not bound by all its findings.
• Fakruddin Shamsuddin Saiyed vs. Bai Jenab [AIR 1944 Bom 118]: The Bombay High Court held that a Magistrate should not surrender discretion simply because the husband has a restitution decree.
• Sampuran Singh vs. Gurdev Kaur and another [1985 Cri LJ 1072 (P&H)]: The Punjab & Haryana High Court observed that a wife can claim maintenance despite a restitution decree if the husband’s conduct obstructs her obedience.
• Amina Mohammedali Khoja vs. Mohammedali Ramjanali Khoja and another [1985 SCC OnLine Bom 99]: The Bombay High Court noted that maintenance can be granted even if the husband has a restitution decree, unless the wife willfully deserted without reasonable cause.
• Kavungal Kooppakkattu Zeenath vs. Mundakkattu SulfikerAli [2008 SCC OnLine Ker 78]: The Kerala High Court distinguished between “refusal” and “failure” to live with the husband, stating that refusal implies a willful rejection of an offer to live together.
• Subal Das vs. Mousumi Saha (Das) and another [2017 SCC OnLine Tri 175]: The Tripura High Court held that a wife refusing a restitution decree cannot be deprived of maintenance.
• Babita vs. Munna Lal [2022 SCC OnLine Del 4933]: The Delhi High Court opined that an ex parte restitution decree does not automatically end a wife’s maintenance right.
• Shri Mudassir vs. Shirin and others [Criminal Revision Application No. 268 of 2022]: The Bombay High Court noted that mere readiness to cohabit does not absolve the husband of maintenance liability if the wife has sufficient reason to stay away.
• Smt. S.R. Ashwini vs. G. Harish [NC: 2024: KHC: 14466]: The Karnataka High Court held that a restitution decree does not bar maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
• Girishbhai Babubhai Raja vs. Smt. Hansaben Girishchandra and another [1985 SCC OnLine Guj 161]: The Gujarat High Court observed that a civil court order for a wife to stay with her husband presupposes that she has no justification to be away.
• Hem Raj vs. Urmila Devi and others [1996 SCC OnLine HP 116]: The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that if a civil court finds the wife had no just cause to withdraw from the husband, she cannot claim maintenance.
• Ravi Kumar vs. Santosh Kumari [1997 SCC OnLine P&H 529]: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a wife against whom a decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been passed by the Civil Court would not be entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. if, in the proceedings of restitution, a specific issue was framed as to whether the wife refused to live with her husband without sufficient reason and the parties were given an opportunity to lead evidence, whereupon specific findings were recorded by the Civil Court against the wife on the issue.
• Kirtikant D. Vadodaria vs. State of Gujarat and another [(1996) 4 SCC 479]: The Supreme Court held that a restitution decree does not, by itself, defeat a wife’s right to maintenance.
• Amrita Singh vs. Ratan Singh and another [(2018) 17 SCC 737]: The Supreme Court held that a wife has reasonable grounds to not join her husband, thereby entitling her to maintenance, if she was treated with cruelty and subjected to persistent demands for dowry.

On the Nature of Maintenance Proceedings:

• Shanti Kumar Panda vs. Shakuntala Devi [(2004) 1 SCC 438]: The Supreme Court held that a decision by a Criminal Court would not bind the Civil Court while a decision by the Civil Court would bind the Criminal Court.
• Mst. Jagir Kaur and another vs. Jaswant Singh [AIR 1963 SC 1521]: The Supreme Court held that proceedings under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, are in the nature of civil proceedings.
• Iqbal Singh Marwah and another vs. Meenakshi Marwah and another [(2005) 4 SCC 370]: The Supreme Court held that there is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other, as both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein.
• K.G. Premshankar vs. Inspector of Police and another [(2002) 8 SCC 87]: The Supreme Court clarified the relevance of civil court judgments in criminal cases, stating that they are not conclusive except as provided in Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal vs. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and others [(1978) 4 SCC 70]: The Supreme Court noted that a final determination of a civil right by a Civil Court would prevail against a like decision by a Criminal Court but held that this principle would be inapplicable when it comes to maintenance granted under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as opposed to maintenance granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

On Mental Cruelty:

• Parveen Mehta vs. Inderjit Mehta [(2002) 5 SCC 706]: The Supreme Court held that mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling of one of the spouses due to the behavioral pattern by the other and, unlike physical cruelty, mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence.

On the Definition of ‘Wife’ under Section 125 CrPC:

• Rohtash Singh vs. Ramendri (Smt.) and others [(2000) 3 SCC 180]: The Supreme Court clarified that a wife, who suffered a decree of divorce on the ground of deserting her husband, would not be entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as long as the marriage subsisted, but she would be entitled to such maintenance once she attained the status of a divorced wife, in the light of the definition of a ‘wife’ in Explanation (b) to Section 125(1) Cr.P.C.

Ratio

The Supreme Court held that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not automatically disentitle a wife from claiming maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The Court emphasized that the term “sufficient reason” in Section 125(4) CrPC must be interpreted broadly to include situations where a wife has justifiable grounds for not returning to her husband’s home, such as cruelty, dowry demands, or other forms of ill-treatment. The Court also noted that the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are summary in nature and aimed at providing immediate relief to destitute wives, and they should not be defeated by a restitution decree obtained in civil proceedings.

The court clarified that the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are summary in nature and aimed at providing immediate relief to destitute wives. The court also emphasized that the term “sufficient reason” in Section 125(4) CrPC must be interpreted broadly to include situations where a wife has justifiable grounds for not returning to her husband’s home, such as cruelty, dowry demands, or other forms of ill-treatment.

The Supreme Court also took note of the fact that the wife was not cross-examined in the maintenance proceedings, and the evidence she presented regarding her dependence on her brother and the miscarriage was not rebutted. This further strengthened her case for maintenance.

The Court further clarified that unless there is a specific finding in the restitution proceedings that the wife has no valid reason to refuse to live with her husband, a general restitution decree cannot be a ground to deny maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

Decision

The Supreme Court allowed Rina Kumari’s appeal, setting aside the Jharkhand High Court’s order. It restored the Family Court’s order granting Rina maintenance of ₹10,000 per month from the date of the application. The Court clarified that the restitution decree does not automatically disentitle a wife from claiming maintenance, especially when she has valid reasons for not returning to her husband’s home. The Court emphasized that the object of Section 125 CrPC is to prevent vagrancy and destitution, and this purpose should not be defeated by a decree of restitution of conjugal rights.

Dissenting Opinion

There was no dissenting opinion in this case. The judgment was authored by Justice Sanjay Kumar, with Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna concurring.

Sentiment Analysis

The judgment of the Supreme Court is largely seen as a positive step towards protecting the rights of women in India. The sentiment analysis of the judgment can be broken down as follows:

Flowchart of the Legal Process

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case is a significant step towards ensuring that women’s maintenance rights are not easily undermined by restitution decrees. By emphasizing the need to consider the specific circumstances of each case and the reasons for a wife’s refusal to return to her husband’s home, the Court has reaffirmed the social justice objective of Section 125 CrPC. This judgment provides much-needed protection to women facing abuse, neglect, or dowry demands and ensures that they are not left destitute due to legal technicalities. The decision clarifies the interplay between civil and criminal proceedings, emphasizing that the summary nature of maintenance proceedings is designed to provide immediate relief to destitute wives. The Court’s nuanced approach ensures that the spirit of the law is upheld, protecting the rights and dignity of women in India.