Can't deny maintenance over wife's refusal to obey decree of restitution of conjugal rights: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday said mere passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights at the husband’s behest and its non-compliance by the wife would not, by itself, be sufficient to deny her maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

"A decree for restitution of conjugal rights secured by a husband coupled with non-compliance therewith by the wife would not be determinative straightaway either of her right to maintenance or the applicability of the disqualification under Section 125(4) CrPC," a bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar said.

Allowing the appellant wife's plea against the Jharkhand High Court's order, the court said it would depend on the facts of the individual case and this would have to be decided, on the strength of the material and evidence available, whether the wife still had valid and sufficient reason to refuse to live with her husband, despite such a decree.

The court examined the question whether non compliance with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by a wife would be sufficient in itself to deny her maintenance, owing to Section 125(4) CrPC, which stated a wife is not entitled to receive maintenance from husband if she refuses to live with husband without a sufficient reason.

The bench examined the issue, noting several High Courts dealt with it but there was no consistent view and their opinions were varied and conflicting.

It noted the two proceedings — one related to restitution of conjugal rights and another on maintenance under Section 125 CrPC — are altogether independent and are not directly or even indirectly connected, in the sense that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC do not arise from proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights.

"There can be no hard and fast rule in this regard and it must invariably depend on the distinctive facts and circumstances obtaining in each particular case," the bench said.

In the case, the High Court held the wife would not be entitled to maintenance as she had not returned to the matrimonial home without a sufficient cause, despite the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, which she had not even chosen to challenge by way of appeal.

The bench, however, said passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights cannot be held against the woman. It held the High Court erred grievously in applying 125(4) CrPC. The court restored the family court's order for payment of Rs 10,000 as monthly maintenance to the appellant, having noted various circumstances including her allegations of mental and physical torture, denial of use of LPG and toilet and demand of dowry.

In its judgment, the court also rejected a contention that findings in the judgment for restitution of conjugal rights by the family court, being a civil court, would be binding on the court seized of the petition under Section 125 CrPC as they are to be treated as criminal proceedings.