Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125(4) – Disqualification under, when not attracted – Wife’s right to maintenance u/s.125, CrPC – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.9 – Decree for restitution of conjugal rights obtained by respondent No.1-husband – Non-compliance therewith by the appellant-wife – If would be sufficient to attract the disqualification u/s.125(4): Held: No – 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 u/s.125(4) or be determinative straightaway of her right to maintenance – It would depend on the facts of each case to be decided, on the evidence available, whether the wife still had valid and sufficient reason to refuse to live with her husband, despite such a decree – Restitution decree was passed on 23.04.2022 – Admittedly, there was no attempt made at reconciliation after 2017 – However, having secured the restitution decree, respondent No.1 did nothing – He neither sought execution of the decree or a decree of divorce – The stalemate created by Respondent No.1 reflects his lack of bonafides and demonstrates his attempt to disown all responsibility towards his wife – His conduct in completely ignoring the appellant after she suffered the miscarriage of their child added to her suffering due to the ill-treatment in her matrimonial home – Respondent No.1’s admission that he did not bear the expenditure for her treatment and her unrebutted assertion that he did not take her to the hospital or even come from Ranchi to see her were clear indicia of the pain and mental cruelty meted out to her – Therefore, she had just cause to not return to her matrimonial home, despite the restitution decree – Appellant had more than sufficient reason to stay away from the society of Respondent No.1 – Hence, her refusal to live with him, notwithstanding the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights cannot be held against her – The disqualification u/s.125(4), CrPC was thus, not attracted – High Court erred in applying the same holding that the appellant was not entitled to the maintenance granted to her by the Family Court – Impugned judgment set aside – Order of the Family Court restored. [Paras 29, 35, 37-39]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Maintenance proceedings – Nature:
Held: Even if non-compliance with an order for payment of maintenance entails penal consequences, like other decrees of a Civil Court, such proceedings would not qualify as or become criminal proceedings – Nomenclature of maintenance proceedings initiated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, as those provisions find place therein, cannot be held to be conclusive as to the nature of such proceedings. [Para 30]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Maintenance – Statutory scheme – Discussed. [Paras 8, 9]
Words and Phrases – Mental cruelty; “Judgments in rem”; “Judgments in personam” – Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.40-43 – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – ss.34-37 – Discussed. [Paras 32, 33, 36]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.