Mere Decree For Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Doesn’t Disentitle Grant Of Maintenance U/S 125 CrPC: Madhya Pradesh HC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court reiterated that mere Decree of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) does not disentitle grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

The Indore Bench was deciding a Criminal Revision filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and Section 397 CrPC against the Order of the Family Court by which maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- was awarded in favour of the wife.

A Single Bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh referred to the Judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Babita vs. Munna Lal [2022 SCC Online Del 4933] in which it was observed –

“MERE DECREE OF SECTION 9 HMA DOES NOT DISENTITLE GRANT OF MAINTENANCE UNDER SECTION 125 Cr. P.C. … There is nothing in law to debar grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. in case a decree of restitution of conjugal rights is possessed by the husband. … There is no express bar to grant maintenance to a wife, against whom a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been passed. There is, therefore, no bar to entertain application for grant of maintenance.”

Advocate Swati Sharma appeared for the Petitioner while Advocate Gopal Singh Bhadoria appeared for the Respondents.

Factual Background -

The Petitioner/husband and the Respondent/wife got married in 2010 and their marriage was solemnised via mutual consent. The husband was an educated unemployed person and the wife was well aware of the same. Whereas, the wife was B-Tech and persuaded her M-Tech post marriage which was being supported by the in-laws. Out of the said wedlock, a daughter was born and since 8 years of marriage, there was no trouble. However, due to various reasons, the wife used to have frequent visits to Ujjain and then after some time, the husband realized that the duration of the stay is being enlarged with the visits and that his wife shown very less interest in discharging her conjugal duties.

Thereafter, the wife requested the husband to settled down in Ujjain and the husband made so many attempts to make her understand that he could not leave his old aged dependent parents, and made many attempts to bring her back to Khandwa, which eventually failed. Resultantly, an Application was filed before the Family Court for restitution of conjugal rights and the same was allowed. Pursuantly, in counter action, the wife filed an Application under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court and the same was allowed. Hence, the case was before the High Court.

The High Court in the above regard, said, “On this aspect, considering the almost similar facts and circumstances of the case, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Jabalpur Bench) in the case of Avedesh Kumar Tiwari vs. Smt. Chitra Tiwari passed in CRR No.1447/2011 dated 28.08.2015 has clearly held that "when the applicant did not lead any evidence before the trial Court and ex-parte order of maintenance was granted then, the evidence lead in the case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be applied in the maintenance case with retrospective effect."

The Court added that the findings of the concerned Court arrived at in the proceedings of final Decree passed under Section 9 of HMA is not having any binding effect on the Trial Court/Family Court at the time of passing the Judgment regarding grant or non-grant of maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC.

“In view of the aforesaid settled law, only on the basis of decree in favour of petitioner under Section 9 of HMA, it cannot be assumed that the husband is willing to keep his wife with him. Actually, behaviour of husband with his wife is material in such type of cases. Even if husband obtained a decree under Section 9 of HMA in his favour, it would be expected from him that he must behave properly with his wife and keep her with him in good manner”, it remarked.

Furthermore, the Court noted that if a person misbehaves and commits cruelty with his wife, she has every reason to live separate from her husband and only on the basis of ex-parte decree, a destitute wife cannot be precluded from getting maintenance from her husband.

“It is time honourned principal that the wife is entitled to have a financial status equivalent to that of the husband. In this Case, the respondent has proved that she is unable to maintain herself. Certainly, she would get only the maintenance amount from her husband which is neither luxurious nor penurious but in any way, it should be in accordance with financial status of husband. The expression "unable to maintain herself" does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute before she can apply for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition and affirmed the impugned Order.

Cause Title- ABC v. XYZ and Others (Neutral Citation: 2024:MPHC-IND:35455)

Click here to read/download the Judgment