The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reiterated that a decree under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), does not bar the granting of maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The Indore Bench considered a Criminal Revision petition filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and Section 397 CrPC, challenging a Family Court’s order that awarded ₹6,000 as maintenance to the wife.
Justice Prem Narayan Singh, sitting as a single bench, referred to the Delhi High Court’s ruling in Babita vs. Munna Lal [2022 SCC Online Del 4933], which emphasized that…
“MERE DECREE OF SECTION 9 HMA DOES NOT DISENTITLE GRANT OF MAINTENANCE UNDER SECTION 125 Cr. P.C. … There is nothing in law to debar grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. in case a decree of restitution of conjugal rights is possessed by the husband. … There is no express bar to grant maintenance to a wife, against whom a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been passed. There is, therefore, no bar to entertain application for grant of maintenance.”
Advocate Swati Sharma represented the petitioner, while Advocate Gopal Singh Bhadoria appeared for the respondents.
Factual Background:
The petitioner (husband) and the respondent (wife) were married in 2010 with mutual consent. The husband, although educated, was unemployed—a fact the wife was fully aware of at the time of their marriage. The wife, a B-Tech graduate, pursued her M-Tech studies after marriage with financial support from her in-laws. The couple had a daughter, and their marriage was harmonious for the first eight years.
Over time, however, the wife began frequently visiting Ujjain, with these visits becoming increasingly prolonged. The husband noticed a growing lack of interest from his wife in fulfilling her conjugal responsibilities. Eventually, the wife requested that the husband move to Ujjain. Despite repeated explanations that he could not leave his elderly and dependent parents, the husband’s efforts to convince her were unsuccessful. He also tried several times to bring her back to Khandwa, but to no avail.
As a result, the husband filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, which ruled in his favor. In response, the wife filed an application under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance, which the Family Court also allowed. This led to the matter being brought before the High Court for review.
The High Court in the above regard, said, “On this aspect, considering the almost similar facts and circumstances of the case, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Jabalpur Bench) in the case of Avedesh Kumar Tiwari vs. Smt. Chitra Tiwari passed in CRR No.1447/2011 dated 28.08.2015 has clearly held that “when the applicant did not lead any evidence before the trial Court and ex-parte order of maintenance was granted then, the evidence lead in the case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be applied in the maintenance case with retrospective effect.”
The Court further observed that the findings in the final decree proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) are not binding on the Trial Court or Family Court when determining the grant or denial of maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.
“In view of the aforesaid settled law, only on the basis of decree in favour of petitioner under Section 9 of HMA, it cannot be assumed that the husband is willing to keep his wife with him. Actually, behaviour of husband with his wife is material in such type of cases. Even if husband obtained a decree under Section 9 of HMA in his favour, it would be expected from him that he must behave properly with his wife and keep her with him in good manner”, it remarked.
The Court further noted that if a husband engages in misconduct or subjects his wife to cruelty, she is justified in living separately. Additionally, an ex-parte decree alone does not disqualify a destitute wife from seeking maintenance from her husband.
“It is time honourned principal that the wife is entitled to have a financial status equivalent to that of the husband. In this Case, the respondent has proved that she is unable to maintain herself. Certainly, she would get only the maintenance amount from her husband which is neither luxurious nor penurious but in any way, it should be in accordance with financial status of husband. The expression “unable to maintain herself” does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute before she can apply for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.”, it concluded.
As a result, the High Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the challenged order.
