The Gujarat High Court has held that mere inability of a wife to establish allegations of cruelty would not mean that she left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and that each case must be considered as per evidence. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 214]

The court said this while upholding a family court order rejecting a woman's maintenance claim, after finding that she had voluntarily left the matrimonial home, refused to live with her husband and had a mutual divorce thereby attracting bar to maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC.

For context, Section 125(4) states that no wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.

Justice SV Pinto said that Section 125 CrPC contemplates three distinct circumstances in which a wife would not be entitled to maintenance: first, where she is living in adultery; secondly, where she refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason; and thirdly, where the parties are living separately by mutual consent.

"It is settled law that merely because the applicant failed to establish the allegations of cruelty would not, by itself, automatically disentitle her to maintenance. The entitlement or dis-entitlement must ultimately be determined in accordance with the requirements of Section 125, including the statutory exceptions under sub-Section. The crucial question, therefore, is whether the findings recorded by the learned Family Court attracting Section 125(4) are supported by the evidence and are legally sustainable.
In this context, Section 125(4) of the Code assumes significance, which specifically provides, inter alia, that a wife shall not be entitled to receive maintenance from her husband if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with him or if the parties are living separately by mutual consent. In the present case, the learned Family Court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, has recorded a categorical finding that the applicant had left the matrimonial home of her own free will and had failed to establish any just or sufficient reason for residing separately from respondent No.2".

The court said that the subsequent execution of the divorce deed within two days of her leaving the matrimonial home, viewed along with the other evidence on record, further lends support to the finding regarding the circumstances in which the parties came to reside separately.

The court however clarified that "mere inability to prove allegations of cruelty does not invariably lead to the conclusion that a wife has left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause".

"Each case must necessarily depend upon its own evidence. In the present case, the conclusion is sustainable because the learned Family Court has considered the entire evidence and recorded a specific finding regarding the circumstances in which the applicant left the matrimonial home," the court said.

The court said that findings recorded by the Family Court regarding the applicant's voluntary separation and absence of sufficient cause are based upon the evidence on record and attract the statutory restriction contemplated under Section 125(4) of the Code.

The court found no perversity , patent illegality or material irregularity in such findings, and said that no case is made out for interference in exercise of the limited revisional jurisdiction confirming the order denying maintenance.

The court was hearing the wife's plea challenging a family court order which rejected her application seeking maintenance from her husband under Section 125 CrPC.

The wife had left matrimonial home on 14.08.2021 and thereafter, on 16.08.2021, the parties executed a deed of divorce by mutual consent. She then instituted maintenance proceedings alleging she was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment by husband and his family members and that she was, therefore, compelled to leave the matrimonial home.

Husband claimed that the applicant had voluntarily left the matrimonial home and that she was living in adultery and, therefore, in view of the statutory bar contained in Section 125(4) CrPC, she was not entitled to claim maintenance. Family court, recorded a finding, on the basis of the evidence before it, that the applicant had left the matrimonial home voluntarily and was living in adultery and rejected her plea for maintenance.

The plea was dismissed.

Case title: NAYNABEN BHUPATBHAI RATHOD v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 666 of 2023

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 214

Click Here To Read/Download Order