Ill-Treatment In Matrimonial Home Justifies Separate Residence Of Wife, Even If Husband Not Personally Guilty: Bombay HC Grants Maintenance

Torture or ill-treatment of the wife in her husband's house, or even when a wife cannot reasonably hope that she can live with dignity at her husband's house are some sufficient grounds for a wife to refuse to live with her husband and seek maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the Bombay High Court held recently.Sitting at the Nagpur seat, single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke dismissed a husband's revision application, who had challenged a Family Court's order which had fixed Rs 7000 as monthly maintenance to the wife from September 2024 onwards. The Family Court had ordered the husband, a gangman, with the Railways, to pay an amount of Rs 500 from January 14, 2017 till December 31, 2020 and thereafter Rs 6000 was ordered to be paid till August 31, 2024.The husband in his plea contended that the wife herself left the matrimonial house, without any sufficient cause of action and thus was not entitled to any maintenance as provided under Sub-section 4 to section 125, which bars a wife from seeking maintenance when she without any sufficient reason, refuses to live with her husband.In her April 10 judgment, which was made available recently, Justice Joshi-Phalke held, "Torture or ill-treatment in the husband's house would be sufficient for refusal by the wife-claimant to live with her husband, even though husband may not be guilty personally. Where a wife cannot reasonably hope to live with dignity with her husband she may refuse to live with him. The offer (of the husband to cohabit or maintain wife) must be bonafide and the same should not have been made with an object to escape from the obligation to pay maintenance. The burden that the wife is refusing to live with him is to be discharged by the husband. But when once that is proved, it is for the wife to show that there are reasons for her living apart from the husband."The object of Section 125, the judge made it clear, is to arm a wife in difficulty with a cause of action to get maintenance from her erring husband and even though a husband offers to maintain his wife with a condition of her living with him and she refuses to live with him, the Magistrate may consider ground of refusal as stated by wife.Explaining the object of Section 125, Justice Joshi-Phalke pointed out that this provision is to provide a 'summary remedy' to save dependents from destitution and vagrancy, and thus to serve a social purpose apart from an independent obligation of the parties under their personal law. "Since the object is to prevent vagrancy or destitution by means of a summary remedy before a Magistrate, jurisdiction is preventive rather than remedial or punitive," the judge observed. Further, Justice Joshi-Phalke explained that the foundation of an order of maintenance is the 'neglect or refusal' of the husband to maintain his wife, child or parents.'Refusal' the judge explained that it would mean a failure to maintain or denial of the obligation to maintain after demanded by the wife or the dependants. 'Neglect' on the other hand, means a default or omission to maintain, in the absence of a demand."Neglect or refusal may be implied from the conduct of a party and need not be a formal refusal. Refusal or neglect on the part of husband may be proved not only by express words, but also by his conduct. Under sub-section(4), a wife without sufficient reason refuses to live with her husband is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125. Neither in Sub-section (4) which deals with such a situation nor in Sub-section(5), the Code attempts to enumerate what would be sufficient cause for a wife-claimant to refuse to live with her husband and yet succeed in her claim for maintenance. It is left to be objectively determined by the Court having regard to the circumstances of case and social ideas and background facts," Justice Joshi-Phalke explained. In the instant case, the judge noted that the husband, despite service of the notice, did not contest the divorce petition filed by the wife and that his cross-examination showed that he did not cared to know how his wife was living her life and, therefore, these circumstances are sufficient to show that there is refusal and neglect on the part of the husband."Admittedly, no provision was made by the husband for maintenance of the wife. There is nothing on record to show that she is earning for her livelihood. In that situation, grant of maintenance by the Family Court appears to be just and reasonable one. Thus, the revision being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed," the court ordered. With these observations, the court dismissed the revision application.Appearance:Advocate VN Mate appeared for the Husband.Advocate BV Gupta represented the Wife. Case Title: MKJ vs LMJ (Criminal Revision Application 183 of 2024)Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 270Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Ill-Treatment In Matrimonial Home Justifies Separate Residence Of Wife, Even If Husband Not Personally Guilty: Bombay HC Grants Maintenance

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ill-Treatment In Matrimonial Home Justifies Separate Residence Of Wife, Even If Husband Not Personally Guilty: Bombay HC Grants Maintenance

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers