In a significant judgement, the Supreme Court has ruled that a woman can be given the right to maintenance from her husband even after she has not complied with the decree to cohabit with her spouse if she has valid and sufficient reason to refuse to live with him.

A bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar settled the legal dispute over the question whether a husband, who secures a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, stands absolved of paying maintenance to his wife by virtue of law if his wife refuses to abide by the said decree and return to the matrimonial home.

The bench said there can be no hard and fast rule in this regard and it must invariably depend on the circumstances of the case.

It said the question as to whether noncompliance with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by a wife would be sufficient in itself to deny her maintenance, owing to Section 125(4) of CrPC has been addressed by several high courts but no consistent view is forthcoming, as their opinions were varied and conflicting.

After analysing various judgements of the high courts and the apex court, the bench said, "Thus, the preponderance of judicial thought weighs in favour of upholding the wife's right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and the mere passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights at the husband's behest and non-compliance therewith by the wife would not, by itself, be sufficient to attract the disqualification under Section 125(4) CrPC." The bench said it would depend on the facts of the individual case and it would have to be decided on the strength of the material and evidence available, whether the wife still had valid and sufficient reason to refuse to live with her husband, despite such a decree.

"There can be no hard and fast rule in this regard and it must invariably depend on the distinctive facts and circumstances obtaining in each particular case.

"In any event, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights secured by a husband coupled with non-compliance therewith by the wife would not be determinative straightaway either of her right to maintenance or the applicability of the disqualification under Section 125(4) CrPC," it said.

The bench gave the authoritative pronouncement, in the case of an estranged couple from Jharkhand, who entered into the wedlock on May 1, 2014 but parted ways in August, 2015.

The husband moved the family court in Ranchi for restitution of conjugal rights and claiming that she left her matrimonial home on August 21, 2015 and did not return thereafter despite repeated efforts to bring her back.

His wife, in her written submission before the family court, alleged that she was subjected to torture and mental agony by her husband, who demanded Rs 5 lakh dowry for purchasing a four wheeler.

She alleged that he had extramarital relations and she had suffered a miscarriage in January 1, 2015 but her husband did not come to see her from his workplace.

The wife further claimed that she was willing to return to her matrimonial home on the condition that she should be allowed to use the washroom in the house, as she was not allowed to do so earlier, and she should also be allowed to use an LPG stove to prepare food, as she had to do so by using wood and coal.

The family court on March 23, 2022, gave a decree for restitution of conjugal rights while noting that the husband wanted to live with her.

However, the wife did not abide with the decree and instead filed a plea for maintenance with the family court.

The family court ordered maintenance of Rs 10,000 per month to be paid to the wife by her estranged husband.

The husband subsequently challenged the order before the Jharkhand high court, which noted that his wife had not returned to the matrimonial home despite the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, which she had not chosen to challenge by way of appeal.

The high court ruled that the wife was not entitled to maintenance. Aggrieved by the order, the wife challenged the order before the apex court, which ruled in its favour.

The top court said the high court ought not to have given such undue weightage to the said judgment and the findings therein.

It said the fact that she was not allowed to use the toilet in the house or avail proper facilities to cook food in the matrimonial home, facts which were accepted in the restitution proceedings, are further indications of her ill-treatment.

"The appeal is accordingly allowed, setting aside the judgment dated August 4, 2023 passed by the high court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in", the bench said.

It added the order of family court order dated February 15, 2022 is upheld and restored and directed the husband to pay Rs 10,000 to his estranged wife.

"Such maintenance would be payable from the date of filing of the maintenance application, August 3, 2019. Arrears of the maintenance shall be paid in three equal installments," it said.