Can’t deny aid to estranged wife for refusing to return: SC

The SC held that a man cannot deny maintenance to his estranged wife solely because she refuses to live with him

In a landmark ruling that strengthens a woman’s right to autonomy, the Supreme Court on Friday held that a man cannot deny maintenance to his estranged wife solely because she refuses to live with him despite the husband securing a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. By issuing a decree of restitution of conjugal rights, a court orders a woman to return to her husband.

The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and justice PV Sanjay Kumar, clarified that there cannot be a blanket denial of maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) (ANI)

The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and justice PV Sanjay Kumar, clarified that there cannot be a blanket denial of maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to a wife who declines to return to her husband, even if a court has previously ruled in the husband’s favour for restitution of conjugal rights.

The bench emphasised that myriad reasons could lead a woman to decide against resuming cohabitation with her husband, and such decisions should not render her destitute.

“The preponderance of judicial thought weighs in favour of upholding the wife’s right to maintenance under Section 125 of 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) of CrPC,” declared the bench.

The judgment makes it clear that denying maintenance on the sole ground of a wife’s refusal to comply with a restitution of conjugal rights decree would violate the protection granted to women and children against financial distress and vagrancy. “The objective of the provision, then and now, is to alleviate the financial plight of destitute wives, children and now, parents, who are left to fend for themselves,” it underscored.

The court maintained that such cases cannot invariably be brought under the ambit of Section 125(4) of CrPC, which allows for the denial of maintenance if a wife “refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason.”

“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,” said the bench.

The judgment further declared: “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) of CrPC.”

In the facts of the present case, the bench set aside the Jharkhand high court’s August 2023 judgment denying the woman maintenance because she did not join her husband despite the decree of restitution of conjugal rights. Citing facts on record to show that the man continuously ill-treated his wife, the court held she had good reasons not to come back. It directed the husband to pay her the maintenance starting the day she made the application in August 2019.

The ruling is seen as a progressive interpretation of the law that recognises the complexities of marital relationships while affirming a woman’s autonomy in deciding whether or not to return to her husband and reinforcing her right to maintenance even when the husband has obtained a court decree seeking her return.

The judgment also brings renewed attention to the controversial provision of restitution of conjugal rights, which allows courts to direct estranged spouses to return to their matrimonial home.

The Supreme Court is currently hearing a series of petitions challenging the validity of restitution of conjugal rights on the grounds that it infringes upon personal and sexual autonomy. Filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act, these provisions enable a spouse to seek legal recourse when the other partner withdraws from the marriage without reasonable cause. Under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Civil Procedure Code, a spouse who fails to comply with a restitution decree may face attachment of their property. Critics argue that this provision is inherently patriarchal and coercive, stripping individuals of their autonomy and dignity.

In a separate affidavit filed in September 2022, the Union government defended the restitution of conjugal rights provisions, asserting that they are rooted in the legitimate state interest of preserving the institution of marriage and family. The government contended that such laws encourage couples to either fulfil their marital obligations or seek a divorce, thus maintaining the sanctity of marriage. The case awaits decision by the top court.