Rina Kumari Vs Dinesh Kumar Mahto and another

Supreme Court in a significant ruling held that a wife is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., even if she refuses to live with her husband despite a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. Thus a husband filing Restitution of Conjugal Rights case is now futile.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar examined whether a husband could avoid paying maintenance if his wife refuses to return home despite a conjugal rights decree. Justice Kumar’s judgment noted that a wife’s refusal to comply with the conjugal rights decree on just cause wouldn’t disqualify her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The Court found that the husband had neglected his wife after her miscarriage and mistreated her, giving her sufficient reason to stay away. Therefore, the husband remained responsible for maintenance despite her non-compliance with the restitution decree.

“Dinesh sought to shield himself from Reena’s maintenance claim by using the disobeyed restitution decree as defense. This stalemate clearly shows his lack of good faith and attempt to escape responsibility towards his wife,” the Court observed.

The Court allowed the Wife’s Appeal against the Jharkhand High Court’s decision, reinstating the Family Court’s order of Rs. 10,000 monthly maintenance. It emphasized that a conjugal rights decree doesn’t free the husband from maintenance obligations.

The Court clarified that while a restitution decree serves as relevant evidence, it isn’t the sole factor in determining maintenance eligibility. The wife’s reasons for living separately must be independently evaluated.

The Court dismissed the husband’s argument that his wife’s refusal to return home amounted to disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. for maintenance claims.

Instead, they emphasized that Section 125 aims to prevent destitution, applying regardless of ongoing marital disputes. Even divorced wives can claim maintenance under specific conditions. Citing Kirtikant D. Vadodaria and Amrita Singh cases, the Court noted that a wife’s non-compliance with a restitution decree alone doesn’t trigger Section 125(4) disqualification. However, these both cases does not deal with the similar facts. The facts in Kirtikant case is about Step Mother and in Amrita Singh case it is about the husband filing divorce subsequent to Restitution Decree.

The Court stressed that each case must be evaluated individually based on available evidence to determine if the wife has valid reasons to live separately, despite the decree. The Court ultimately upheld the Family Court’s maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Facts of the Case

1. The appellant, Reena, and respondent, Dinesh, married on May 1, 2014. They separated in August 2015, with Reena returning to her parental home.
2. Dinesh filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights in 2018, which was decreed in his favor in April 2022.
3. Reena alleged mental and physical cruelty, dowry demands, and lack of basic facilities in her matrimonial home. She refused to return without assurances of respect and basic living conditions.
4. Dinesh was accused under Section 498A IPC by Reena, leading to his suspension and judicial custody.
5. Reena also filed for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC in 2019, which the Family Court allowed, awarding her ₹10,000 per month. The said order was overturned by the Jharkhand High Court and thus the SLP came to fore.

Arguments of Petitioner and Respondent

Petitioner (Reena):

• Alleged cruelty, dowry demands, and lack of basic living facilities.
• Claimed she was forced to leave the matrimonial home and had sufficient reasons to not return despite the restitution decree.

Respondent (Dinesh):

• Claimed readiness to resume conjugal life and compliance with the restitution decree.
• Argued that Reena’s refusal to return disqualified her from maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC.

Court’s Observations

1. The Supreme Court noted Reena’s allegations of mental and physical cruelty, which were corroborated by evidence, including her abortion and lack of support from Dinesh.
2. It emphasized that a decree of restitution of conjugal rights does not automatically disqualify a wife from claiming maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
3. The Court criticized Dinesh for not pursuing reconciliation or execution of the restitution decree, indicating a lack of bona fides.
4. Reena’s refusal to return to the matrimonial home was held to be justified due to cruelty and lack of basic facilities.
5. The disqualification under Section 125(4) CrPC was deemed inapplicable, restoring Reena’s right to maintenance.

Criticism of the Author of this Website:

Despite Dinesh securing a restitution decree and expressing willingness to reconcile, the Court focused on his past conduct without adequately addressing his present intentions. The judgment placed weight on Reena’s unproved allegations, as she was proceeded exparte and did not lead evidence, while Dinesh’s efforts & win were deemed insufficient despite legal victories.

The ruling emphasizes the husband has just one sided obligations, while the wife’s non-compliance with the restitution decree or her own duties inconsequential.

Such judgments erode our faith in judiciary and would further disincentivize husbands from seeking legal remedies, as compliance by the wife is immaterial. No matter whether it is written in law or sheer non compliance of wife, husband’s financial burden would remain despite non-cooperation or lack of mutual reconciliation efforts.

Read the Complete Judgment Here