Character Assassination Without Proof Is Sufficient Ground For Wife To Live Separately: Orissa High Court
The Orissa High Court dismissed a Revision Petition filed by the husband challenging a Family Court's order that directed him to pay Rs.3,000 per month as maintenance to his estranged wife.

The Orissa High Court has held that a husband casting aspersions on his wife's character without any proof constitutes sufficient grounds for her to live separately and claim maintenance under Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed that a wife's chastity is her "priceless possession," and doubting it without justification justifies her refusal to live with her husband.
"It is quite natural for a wife to refuse to live with her husband who doubted her chastity, inasmuch as the chastity of a woman is not only dearest to her, but also is a priceless possession in her," the Court observed.
The Court dismissed a Revision Petition filed by the husband challenging a Family Court's order that directed him to pay Rs. 3,000 per month as maintenance to his estranged wife.
Advocate S.P. Dash appeared for the petitioner, and Advocate B.K. Mishra appeared for the respondent.
Case Background
The couple was married in 2021 but began living separately after a few months due to marital discord. The wife filed a claim for maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC, alleging that her husband doubted her character. The husband denied the allegations, accusing the wife of leaving without sufficient cause and arguing that she was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125(4).
Section 125(4) states that a wife is not entitled to maintenance if she lives in adultery, refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason, or is living separately by mutual consent.
Contentions of the Parties
The petitioner-husband argued that his wife left him without valid reasons and that the maintenance amount was excessive, especially given his income as a skilled laborer earning Rs. 9,000 per month. The wife contended that she was forced to leave due to baseless accusations against her character, making her eligible for maintenance.
Court’s Observations
The Court noted that the husband had suggested in cross-examination that the wife was involved in an extramarital affair, without providing any evidence. Justice Satapathy emphasized that such unfounded accusations are enough for a wife to refuse to live with her husband.
“Thus, when the character of wife being doubted by her husband without any proof, she has enough reason to live separately from her husband. In this case, without producing any proof about the infidelity of his wife, the husband has simply made character assassination of his wife which itself is a ground for wife to refuse to live with her husband. Hence, the plea of the husband in this case about wife not staying with him without any sufficient cause is liable to be rejected and merits no consideration,” the Court stated.
On the quantum of maintenance, the Court observed that the Family Court appropriately considered the husband's income and the wife's inability to sustain herself.
Conclusion
The Court upheld the Family Court's decision, affirming the maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000 per month, and dismissed the husband's revision petition. "It is quite clear that the wife is entitled to be maintained commensurate to the standard of living of her husband and in this case, the learned Trial Court has granted sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to the wife as a monthly.....If the monthly income of the husband is Rs.9,000/- per month, he can definitely part with Rs.3,000/- from such income for the maintenance of his wife who is unable to maintain herself and, therefore, the Trial Court has not committed any illegality to grant monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand) to the Opposite Party-wife. Consequently, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Baripada in this case...the revision petition being unmerited stands dismissed, but in the circumstances, there no order as to costs," the Court said in its Order dated January 9.
Cause Title: ABC v. XYZ [RPFAM No.9 of 2024]
Click here to read/download the Order