SC: Restitution Decree Doesn’t Bar Wife’s Maintenance

Introduction:
The Supreme Court recently delivered a significant judgment in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5896 of 2024, dated 10 January 2025, on the interplay between a decree of restitution of conjugal rights granted under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and a wife’s entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The central issue was whether a husband can deny maintenance to his wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. merely because she failed to comply with a restitution decree already granted in favour of the husband. The Court concluded that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, by itself, does not bar a wife from claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Instead, the Court must assess whether the wife had valid and sufficient reasons for not living with her husband.

Main Facts of the Case:

• Marriage & Separation: Parties married in May 2014. By August 2015, the wife began living separately, alleging ill-treatment and dowry demands of ₹5 lakhs.
  
  

• Restitution Suit: In 2018, the husband filed a suit seeking restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court at Ranchi. The wife contested the suit but later stopped appearing. In 2022, the Family Court decreed restitution in favour of the husband.
  
  

• Criminal Proceedings: Meanwhile, in 2018, the wife lodged a complaint under Section 498A IPC against the husband, leading to his arrest and suspension from service.
  
  

• Maintenance Claim: In 2019, the wife filed a case seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Family Court, Dhanbad, awarded her ₹10,000 per month in 2022.
  
  

• High Court Reversal: The husband challenged the order granting maintenance. In 2023, the Jharkhand High Court set aside the order, holding that non-compliance with the restitution decree disentitled the wife to maintenance under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.
  
  

• Appeal to Supreme Court: The wife challenged the High Court’s order through a Special Leave Petition.
  
  

Questions for Consideration Before the Supreme Court:

1. Whether a wife’s refusal to join the husband despite a restitution decree granted in his favour bars her right to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.?
   
   

2. Whether a finding in restitution proceedings is binding upon a court deciding maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.?
   
   

Analysis by the Court:

1. Nature and Purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C.
   Section 125 is a measure of social justice, designed to prevent destitution and vagrancy by providing a speedy remedy to wives, children, and parents who are unable to maintain themselves. Judgments in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008), Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015), Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014), and Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) underscore that maintenance is not punitive but protective, ensuring dignity and sustenance.
   
   

2. Interpretation of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.
   Section 125(4) disqualifies a wife from maintenance if she lives in adultery, refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason, or if they live separately by mutual consent. The word “refusal,” not “failure,” is crucial. Courts must determine whether the wife had valid reasons for not cohabiting.
   
   

3. Effect of Restitution of Conjugal Rights Decree:
   The Court rejected the husband’s argument that a restitution decree automatically disentitles the wife from maintenance under Section 125(4). It considered several High Court judgments. While some held that restitution decrees in favour of the husband bar maintenance, others (Amina Khoja v. Mohammedali Khoja, Babita v. Munna Lal, Smt. S.R. Ashwini v. G. Harish) emphasized that the wife’s reasons for refusal must still be examined. Supreme Court precedents (Kirtikant Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat, Amrita Singh v. Ratan Singh) also support a contextual approach.
   
   

4. Application to the Present Case:
   The wife’s testimony and evidence of cruelty remained unrebutted as the husband did not cross-examine her witnesses in the restitution proceedings. The Court noted the husband’s failure to take genuine steps to resume conjugal life after securing the restitution decree, as he neither sought its execution nor pursued divorce. This showed lack of bona fides. Therefore, the wife had sufficient reasons for not returning to the matrimonial home despite the restitution decree, and Section 125(4) did not apply.
   
   

5. Nature of Maintenance Proceedings:
   Maintenance proceedings, though in the Cr.P.C., are civil in nature. Hence, findings in restitution suits are not binding but merely relevant. The Court relied on Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2005) and K.G. Premshankar v. Inspector of Police (2002) to hold that civil and criminal proceedings are independent, with different standards of proof.
   
   

Final Judgment:
The Supreme Court set aside the Jharkhand High Court’s order and restored the Family Court’s decision granting maintenance. The husband was directed to pay ₹10,000 per month from 03.08.2019 (date of application), along with arrears payable in three installments by December 2025. The Court concluded that a restitution decree cannot be used as a “shield” by husbands to deny maintenance when cruelty and neglect are evident.

Significance of the Judgment:
This ruling settles the confusion among High Courts by holding that restitution decrees do not automatically bar maintenance claims. It reinforces the protective purpose of maintenance provisions as a tool of social justice. The Court also cautioned against husbands using restitution decrees merely as “paper decrees” to evade financial obligations. The decision aligns with constitutional values of dignity, equality, and social welfare, ensuring women are not left destitute under the guise of legal technicalities.

Conclusion:
This landmark judgment is a powerful reaffirmation of the principle that maintenance is a right, not a charity. By holding that restitution decrees cannot automatically defeat maintenance claims, the Supreme Court has struck a balance between matrimonial remedies and the constitutional mandate to protect vulnerable spouses. The case ensures that husbands cannot misuse restitution proceedings as a strategic defense to escape their fundamental obligation to support their wives.

By Mahesh Tiwari, Advocate, Supreme Court of India