The Bombay High Court has held that a wife who refuses to live with her husband due to torture or ill-treatment in the matrimonial home remains entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke delivered the judgment while hearing a revision application filed by the husband against a Family Court order granting maintenance to his wife.
Court Explains “Sufficient Cause” Under Section 125 CrPC
The court examined Section 125 CrPC and clarified the circumstances in which a wife can refuse to live with her husband and still claim maintenance.
Justice Joshi-Phalke noted that Section 125(4) bars maintenance when a wife refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason. However, the law does not define what amounts to a “sufficient cause.” Courts must determine it based on the facts of each case, social conditions, and surrounding circumstances.
Ill-Treatment Is a Valid Reason to Live Separately
The High Court held that torture or ill-treatment in the husband’s house constitutes sufficient cause for a wife to live separately.
The court clarified that a wife can refuse cohabitation even if the husband is not personally responsible for the mistreatment. If she cannot reasonably expect to live with dignity in the matrimonial home, she can seek maintenance.
The court also explained the burden of proof. First, the husband must prove that the wife is living separately. Once he does so, the wife must establish the reasons for her separate residence.
Background of the Dispute
The parties married in 2012. According to the wife, disputes began soon after she entered the matrimonial home. She alleged that her in-laws complained about inadequate dowry and subjected her to physical and mental harassment.
She also claimed that her husband assaulted her. Following the incident, she approached the police and received assistance from the Women’s Cell.
Despite several attempts by her family to resolve the dispute, the husband and his relatives did not cooperate. As a result, she left the matrimonial home.
The wife further alleged that the husband failed to provide any financial support. She therefore approached the Family Court seeking maintenance.
Family Court Grants Maintenance
After evaluating the evidence, the Family Court found that the husband had neglected and refused to maintain his wife. It consequently awarded maintenance in her favour.
The husband challenged the order before the High Court. He argued that the wife had failed to prove neglect or refusal. He also contended that an ex parte divorce decree operated against her and barred her claim for maintenance.
Advocate V.N. Mate represented the husband, while Advocate B.V. Gupta appeared for the wife.
High Court Rejects Husband’s Arguments
The High Court found no merit in the husband’s contention that the wife could maintain herself.
The court noted that he had produced no evidence to show that she had an independent source of income. During cross-examination, he admitted that he had not filed any documents regarding her residence and did not know whether she lived in rented accommodation.
The Bench also considered the husband’s conduct during the divorce proceedings. It noted that he failed to contest the matter despite receiving proper notice.
Revision Application Dismissed
After examining the record, the High Court concluded that the Family Court had correctly appreciated the evidence. The court found clear indications of neglect and refusal on the husband’s part.
Since no evidence showed that the wife earned enough to support herself, the court upheld the maintenance order and dismissed the husband’s revision application.
