Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, does a decree for restitution of conjugal rights obtained by the husband, coupled with the wife's non-compliance, by itself disentitle her to maintenance under Section 125?

No. The mere passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights at the husband's behest and non-compliance therewith by the wife is not by itself sufficient to attract the disqualification under Section 125(4). It depends on the facts of the individual case, and has 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.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.125 — s.125(4) — Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s.9 — Maintenance of wife — Decree for restitution of conjugal rights — Refusal to live with husband — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.125(4) — Restitution decree not by itself a disqualification — Held: The mere passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, and non-compliance with it by the wife, is not by itself sufficient to attract the disqualification under Section 125(4). Whether she still had valid and sufficient reason to refuse to live with her husband depends on the facts of each case. (¶29) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.125(4) — 'Refusal' distinguished from 'failure' — Held further: Section 125 must be given a liberal construction to fulfil the intention of the legislature. The crucial word chosen in the provision is 'refusal', and the mere failure of a wife to live with her husband does not disentitle her to maintenance. (¶27) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.125 — Maintenance proceedings essentially civil — Civil Court findings not binding — Held further: Maintenance proceedings under Section 125 are essentially civil in nature, and the two proceedings are altogether independent. Findings of the Civil Court in the restitution suit are therefore not binding on the Court seized of the maintenance petition. (¶30, 33) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.125(4) — Husband's conduct — Sufficient reason to stay away — Held further: Where the husband ignored his wife after her miscarriage, denied her the use of the toilet and proper cooking facilities, and having secured the restitution decree neither sought its execution nor a decree of divorce, she had sufficient reason to stay away. Appeal allowed and the maintenance order restored. (¶37, 38)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato and another — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India