Supreme Court of India· 10 January 2025
What is the object of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?
Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato and another
2025 INSC 55
Coram: Sanjiv Khanna; Sanjay Kumar
Answer
It is a measure of social justice, especially enacted to protect women and children, falling within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution. The object is not to punish a person for his neglect but to prevent the vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife by providing her food, clothing and shelter through a speedy remedy, so that she may lead a life in a similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband.
Headnote
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)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 10On the same lines, in Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai[^1], this Court observed that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his neglect but to prevent the vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing and shelter by a speedy remedy. It was held that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice, especially enacted to protect women and children, falling within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution. Thus, the objective of the provision, then and now, is to alleviate the financial plight of destitute wives, children and now, parents, who are left to fend for themselves.
Paragraph 13In Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan[^5], this Court noted that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 Cr.P.C. is the amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as the mental agony and anguish that a woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. It was further observed that, as per law, she is entitled to lead life in a similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband and as long as she is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 Cr.P.C., it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity. Lastly, it was noted that, a plea is sometimes advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay as he does not have a job or his business is not doing well, but these are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law as a husband, who is healthy, able-bodied and in a position to support himself is under a legal obligation to support his wife and her right to receive maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., unless disqualified, is an absolute right.
Acts & Sections
s.125(4) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s.125 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s.9 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955s.13(1A)(ii) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955s.41 Indian Evidence Act, 1872s.42 Indian Evidence Act, 1872s.498A Indian Penal Code, 1860Order XXI Rule 32 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908One 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.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →
Also decided in this judgment
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?Under Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, what is the difference between a wife's 'refusal' and her 'failure' to live with her husband?Are proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 criminal proceedings, such that a Civil Court's findings bind the Court hearing them?Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is a previous judgment of a Civil Court conclusive proof of what it states in a later proceeding?