Chastity Of Woman Priceless Possession, Character Assassination By Husband Valid Ground For Wife To Live Separately & Claim Maintenance: Orissa HC

The Orissa High Court has recently held that if husband indulges in character assassination of wife without producing proof regarding infidelity, it is a sufficient ground for her to live separately and she shall not be debarred from claiming maintenance as per Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.While upholding the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, the Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed – “It is quite natural for a wife to refuse to live with her husband who doubted her chastity, inasmuch as the chastity of a woman is not only dearest to her, but also is a priceless possession in her. Thus, when the character of wife being doubted by her husband without any proof, she has enough reason to live separately from her husband.”Case BackgroundThe marriage between the petitioner-husband and the opposite party-wife took place in the year 2021. After living together for certain months, the wife parted company of the husband due to marital dissensions and claimed maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.The husband denied all the allegations made by the wife, rather casted aspersions on her character. He further argued that the wife has parted his company and living separately without any valid reason and thus, she is not entitled to claim maintenance as per Section 125(4) of CrPC.Notably, Section 125(4) of the CrPC says that wife shall not be entitled to receive maintenance from her husband 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.The trial Court, after examining the evidence on record, passed the impugned order directing the husband to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to the wife as maintenance. Being aggrieved by the said order, the husband preferred this revision.Contentions of PartiesThe counsel for the petitioner submitted that the wife left the company of the husband without any sufficient cause and thereby, she is not entitled to maintenance and secondly, without proof of income, the Family Court granted higher amount of maintenance to the wife, which is not sustainable.On the other hand, the counsel for the wife contended that the trial Court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order as wife has enough reason to live separately from her husband and the quantum of maintenance is quite low.Court's ObservationsThe Court carved out two fundamental issues raised by the petitioner-husband, viz. (i) the wife refused to live with him without any sufficient cause and thus, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance as per Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C.; and (ii) the quantum of maintenance is excessive.So far as the first contention is concerned, the Court noted that the petitioner-husband doubted the character of his wife and gave suggestion about her extra-marital affair in the cross-examination.“…when her husband raises doubt about her character, she is perfectly justified to refuse to live with her husband which is also evident from the evidence that the wife left her matrimonial home on 28.08.2021 because of this reason,” it added.The Court was of the view that chastity of a woman is dear to her, which is also a priceless possession. Hence, when her character is questioned by her husband without any proof and justification, it becomes a valid ground for her to live separately.“In this case, without producing any proof about the infidelity of his wife, the husband has simply made character assassination of his wife which itself is a ground for wife to refuse to live with her husband. Hence, the plea of the husband in this case about wife not staying with him without any sufficient cause is liable to be rejected and merits no consideration,” the Court held.Justice Satapathy further underlined that the petitioner is working as a skilled labourer, having a monthly income of Rs. 9000/-. Thus, he held, when the wife is not able to maintain herself, the Family Court did not commit any error in granting her a monthly maintenance of Rs. 3000/-.Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed.Case Title: IM v. MMCase No: RPFAM No. 09 of 2024Date of Judgment: January 09, 2025Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S.P. Dash, AdvocateCounsel for the Opposite Party: Mr. B.K. Mishra, AdvocateCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 7Click Here To Read/Download Order

Chastity Of Woman Priceless Possession, Character Assassination By Husband Valid Ground For Wife To Live Separately & Claim Maintenance: Orissa HC

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags