The Supreme Court has observed that a husband securing a decree for restitution of conjugal rights is not absolved of paying maintenance to his wife under Section 125(4) of the CrPC if his wife refuses to abide by the said decree and refuses to return to her matrimonial home.

The Court set aside the decision of the Jharkhand High Court which held that the wife was not entitled to maintenance as Section 125(4) of the CrPC came to the husband’s rescue in light of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights decreed in his favour.

The Bench of Chief Justice Of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed that “preponderance of judicial thought weighs in favour of upholding the wife’s right to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 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) Cr.P.C.”

AOR Mohini Priya represented the Appellant, while AOR Anup Kumar appeared for the Respondent.

The husband had filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. The wife contested the suit by filing her written statement asserting that she was subjected to torture and mental agony by the husband who demanded Rs. 5 lakh to purchase a four-wheeler. She alleged that he had extramarital relations.

Further, the wife submitted that she suffered a miscarriage, but the husband did not even come to visit her. She claimed that she was persuaded to go to her parental home by the husband, and when she returned to her matrimonial home, she was forced to return as she was treated badly by him and his family.

The Family Court decreed the husband’s suit for restitution of conjugal rights and directed the wife to resume her conjugal life with him. However, the wife did not abide by the decree.

Thereafter, the wife sought maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The Family Court noted the husband’s stand that he was ready and willing to keep the wife with full dignity but held, that the wife was entitled to maintenance.

The husband challenged this Order before the High Court, which held that the wife had withdrawn from her husband’s society without reasonable excuse despite the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The Court held that Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. would come to the husband’s aid, and consequently, the wife would not be entitled to maintenance.

The Supreme Court remarked, “Husband, therefore, sought to protect himself from a claim by wife for maintenance by projecting the disobeyed restitution decree as a defence and as long as she did not attain the status of a divorced wife, that protection would endure to his benefit. This stalemate of sorts created by husband clearly reflects his lack of bonafides and demonstrates his attempt to disown all responsibility towards his wife. These factors, taken cumulatively, clearly manifest that wife had more than sufficient reason to stay away from the society of her husband.”

“In any event, 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) Cr.P.C,” the Court held.

The Bench stated that the wife’s miscarriage was the “proverbial last straw” adding to her suffering and ill-treatment in her matrimonial home. “She, therefore, had just cause to not return to her matrimonial home, despite the restitution decree,” it noted.

Consequently, the Court held, “The appeal is accordingly allowed, setting aside the judgment passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. In consequence, the order passed by the Family Court shall stand restored. In furtherance thereof, husband, shall pay maintenance @ 10,000/- per month to wife. Such maintenance would be payable from the date of filing of the maintenance application. Arrears of the maintenance shall be paid by husband in three equal installments.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: R v. D & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 55)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Mohini Priya

Respondents: AOR Anup Kumar and Madhusmita Bora; Advocates Pragya Choudhary, Shruti Singh, Vaibhav Prasad Deo, Neha Jaiswal, Shivam Kumar, Awanish Gupta, Shiv Ram Sharma, Dipankar Singh and Anupama Sharma; Standing Counsel Vishnu Sharma

Click here to read/download the Judgment



Supreme CourtCJI Sanjiv KhannaJustice Sanjay Kumar

Riya Rathore