Wife can claim Maintenance despite Refusing RCR Decree: Supreme Court

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that a wife refusing to live with her husband despite a decree of restitution of conjugal rights(RCR) can still claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.. The ruling highlights the provision's objective of ensuring social justice and preventing destitution, regardless of ongoing marital disputes.

Key Issue

The central question before the bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was:

"Can a husband who secures a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, avoid paying maintenance under Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. if the wife refuses to abide by the decree?"

Judgment Highlights

1. Refusal With Just Cause:

• Justice Sanjay Kumar, in the judgment, noted that a wife's refusal to comply with the decree of restitution of conjugal rights must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
• The Court stated:
  “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.”

2. Case-Specific Observations:

• The Court found that the respondent-husband, Dinesh Kumar Mahto, had neglected his wife, Reena, after a miscarriage and subjected her to ill-treatment.
• This justified her refusal to return to the matrimonial home.
• The Court remarked:
  “Reena had more than sufficient reason to stay away from the society of her husband, Dinesh, and her refusal to live with him, notwithstanding the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, therefore, cannot be held against her.”

3. Social Justice Perspective:

• The Court emphasized that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a social justice provision aimed at preventing destitution and vagrancy.
• The judgment stated:
  “Section 125 applies irrespective of ongoing marital disputes, and even divorced wives are eligible for maintenance under specific circumstances.”

4. Family Court's Order Restored:

• The Supreme Court overturned the Jharkhand High Court's decision, which had denied maintenance to the wife.
• The Family Court's order directing the husband to pay ₹10,000 per month as maintenance was reinstated.

References to Precedents

The judgment drew upon:

1. ̥Kirtikant D. Vadodaria vs. State of Gujarat (1996):

• Held that the passing of a restitution decree does not automatically disqualify a wife from claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

2. Amrita Singh vs. Ratan Singh (2018):

• Reinforced that each case must be examined on its unique facts to determine if the wife's refusal to cohabit is justified.

Case: Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena vs. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato and Another