Torture Or Ill-Treatment In Husband's House Sufficient For Refusal To Live With Him: Bombay High Court Upholds Grant Of Maintenance To Wife
The Bombay High Court was considering a revision application filed by the applicant (husband) challenging the judgment of the Family Court.
Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke, Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench
While upholding an order granting maintenance in favour of a wife, the Bombay High Court has held that torture or ill treatment in the husband's house would be sufficient for refusal by the wife-claimant to live with her husband.
The High Court was considering a revision application filed by the applicant (husband) challenging the judgment of the Family Court granting maintenance to the non-applicant (wife).
The Single Bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke held, “Under sub-section (4), a wife without sufficient reason refuses to live with her husband is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. Neither in Sub-section (4) which deals with such a situation nor in Sub-section (5), the Code attempts to enumerate what would be sufficient cause for a wife-claimant to refuse to live with her husband and yet succeed in her claim for maintenance. It is left to be objectively determined by the Court having regard to the circumstances of case and social ideas and background facts.”
“Torture or ill-treatment in the husband's house would be sufficient for refusal by the wife-claimant to live with her husband, even though husband may not be guilty personally. Where a wife cannot reasonably hope to live with dignity with her husband she may refuse to live with him. The offer must be bona fide and the same should not have been made with object to escaping the obligation to pay maintenance. The burden that the wife is refusing to live with him is to be discharged by the husband. But when once that is proved, it is for the wife to show that there are seasons for her living apart from the husband”, it added.
Advocate V.N.Mate represented the applicant, while Advocate B.V. Gupta represented the non-applicant.
Factual Background
The marriage of the husband and the wife was performed in 2012. After the marriage, the wife resumed cohabitation at the house of the husband. As per the allegations of the wife, on the day when she resumed cohabitation, family members of the husband raised a quarrel with her because less dowry was given and, thereafter, she was subjected to physical and mental harassment. She specifically narrated the incident of the day she was assaulted by her husband, and she rushed to the police. The police sent her to the Women's Cell and, thereafter, the husband and his father raised a quarrel with her. Though many efforts were taken by her and her family members to resolve the dispute, there was no response from the husband or his family members, and, therefore, she was constrained to leave the matrimonial house.
The wife alleged that the husband had also not made any provision for her livelihood, and she had to file an application for the grant of maintenance. The Family Court recorded evidence of both sides and came to the conclusion that there was a refusal and neglect on the part of the husband, and thereby granted maintenance. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the revision was filed on the ground that the wife had not proved the refusal/neglect on the part of the husband. The husband further alleged that the divorce petition was decided ex parte and she was not entitled to any maintenance.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that in the absence of evidence, the contention of the husband that the wife was able to maintain herself could not be accepted. The husband had admitted that he had not filed any document to show that the wife was residing at her parental house, and he had also admitted that he was not aware whether the wife was residing at a rented house. “Thus, it is sufficient to show that he has not taken care of his wife even after the marriage and he is under obligation to maintain her to know how she is leading life”, it added.
The Bench was also of the view that there was a refusal and neglect on the part of the husband. The Bench further considered that the husband, despite service of the notice, had not contested the divorce petition, and there were sufficient circumstances to show that there was a refusal and neglect on the part of the husband.
Further noting the absence of evidence to show that the wife was earning for her livelihood, the Bench found the grant of maintenance by the Family Court to be a reasonable one and dismissed the Revision.
Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:6553)