Husband's Attention Towards Parents Can't Be Ground For Wife To Live Separately, Claim Maintenance: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a husband's attention towards his parents or other family members cannot, by itself, constitute a legally sufficient ground for a wife to live separately and claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 258]Holding that the Family Court had committed a "patent error" in treating the husband's greater attention towards his family members and lack of harmony between the wife and her in-laws as sufficient justification for separate residence, the High Court set aside the maintenance awarded to the wife.The bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai observed,"In the realm of matrimonial jurisprudence, a lack of harmony with in-laws or a husband dedicating attention and care to his parents and family members cannot, under any circumstance, be construed as a justifiable or sufficient ground for a wife to abandon the matrimonial home and subsequently claim maintenance". Referring to clause 4 of Section 125 CrPC, the court emphasized that a wife is not entitled to maintenance if she refuses to live with the husband without any sufficient reason, which includes "complete neglect, deprivation of fundamental rights by the husband, failure to protect the wife from severe cruelty, or subjecting her to continuous physical or mental abuse".The bench added, "The expectation that a husband must severe ties with or withdraw attention from his parents to appease his wife is legally recognized as unreasonable".A criminal revision was filed by a husband challenging the legality of the Family Court's order granting a maintenance application filed by the applicants under Section 125CrPC. Per this order, the revisionist was directed to pay maintenance of ₹10,00 to the non applicant no 1 (wife) and ₹5,000 to each non-applicant no 2 and 3 (minor children).The dispute between the couple arose, which led to the wife moving back to her parents' house. Thereafter, she filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance. The husband pleaded before the lower court that the wife had left voluntarily to live at her parents' home and that she did not inform the husband regarding the birth of their child. The husband had borne the hospital expenses, yet the wife returned to her parents' house after delivery without informing the husband. The record indicated that the husband had submitted an application before the Women's Counselling Centre. The wife returned to the matrimonial house after the condition that a wall be built between the houses, effectively separating the kitchen. There was peace for a while, but the quarrels resumed shortly. Per the record, the wife had also registered a cruelty (Section 498A IPC) case against the husband and his family members. The family members were acquitted by the High Court on September 26, 2016, and the husband was acquitted by the trial court on August 10, 2019. The counsel for the husband claimed that the trial court granted maintenance on mere presumptions. The counsel relied on Section 125(4) of CrPC, emphasising that a wife living separately from the husband without any sufficient cause is not entitled to maintenance. The counsel argued that the wife runs a beauty parlour and has an independent income. Further, it was argued that the wife failed to provide any credible evidence to justify her living separately, especially since the husband was acquitted of charges under Section 498A IPC. The counsel for the wife alleged that shortly after the marriage, the husband and his family began quarrelling with her over trivial matters and tortured her mentally and physically. The wife also argued that when she became pregnant the second time, the husband and his family demanded ₹3 Lakhs. She claimed to have been thrown out of the house along with her child, forcing her to lodge the FIR. Referring to Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, the bench noted that the revision jurisdiction does not usually permit reappreciation or reevaluation of evidence unless a gross miscarriage of justice is demonstrated. The court emphasised that, "subjective satisfaction of the trial court based on evidence cannot be lightly interfered with". The court further noted that the wife not only lived separately without justifiable ground but also levelled "deeply scandalous allegations of an illicit relationship" of the husband with his sister-in-law. Such characterisation is recognised as "most severe form of mental cruelty". Thus, the bench held that the wife failed to establish any justifiable reason to reside separately from the husband and noted that the case falls squarely within the disqualification prescribed under Section 125(4) CrPC. Thus, the court partly allowed the husband's revision. The court quashed the maintenance granted to the wife but enhanced the maintenance granted to the minor children. Case Title: L v A, CRR No.1229/2022Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 258For Petitioner: Advocate Nilesh Dave For Respondent: Neelesh AgrawalClick here to...

Husband's Attention Towards Parents Can't Be Ground For Wife To Live Separately, Claim Maintenance: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

Husband's Attention Towards Parents Can't Be Ground For Wife To Live Separately, Claim Maintenance: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers