The Court observed that a wife living apart from her husband without valid reasons such as cruelty or desertion cannot seek maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC.
The Kerala High Court recently held that a wife who chooses to live separately from her husband without adequate justification is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) [XXX v XXX].
Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that as per Section 125(4) of the CrPC, a wife must establish evidence of cruelty, desertion, or other compelling circumstances to claim maintenance while living apart.
“It is crucial to assess whether the wife’s decision to live separately is based on valid grounds. If valid grounds, such as cruelty or desertion, exist, she may still claim maintenance despite living apart. In cases where the wife refuses to live with the husband without any just cause and there is no evidence of ill-treatment by the husband, the wife is not entitled to maintenance.“, the Judge added.
The Court underscored that Sub-section (4) of Section 125 explicitly prohibits a wife from claiming maintenance if she refuses to live with her husband without a valid reason.
Consequently, the judge granted relief to the husband by setting aside a family court order that had mandated him to pay maintenance to his wife under Section 125 CrPC.
The case stemmed from a maintenance petition filed by the wife against her husband in a family court in Thrissur.
The couple tied the knot in January 2008 and had a child in April 2013.
Marital discord arose in 2015, leading to several legal proceedings, including custody battles and a divorce petition.
In April 2017, the family court dissolved the marriage and ordered the husband to pay ₹25,000 per month as maintenance to his wife.
Unhappy with the decision, the husband filed a revision petition before the High Court.
He challenged the order, claiming that his wife had left the matrimonial home on November 16, 2015, without any valid reason, abandoning their two-year-old child.
He maintained that there was no evidence of mistreatment and that his wife had voluntarily chosen to live separately.
On the other hand, the wife’s counsel contended that she was compelled to leave due to her husband’s misconduct, entitling her to maintenance.
Upon reviewing the evidence, the Court observed that the wife had neither filed a police complaint regarding the alleged mistreatment nor provided any substantial proof of cruelty.
The Court also considered the family court’s finding that the wife had left her husband with the intention of “teaching him a lesson.”
Furthermore, it emphasized that the right of spouses to each other’s companionship, support, and affection—commonly known as “consortium”—is an essential aspect of marriage. If either spouse unjustifiably withdraws from the society of the other without a valid reason, it amounts to a failure to fulfill marital duties.
“The primary duty of parties in marriage is to live together and fulfil their marital obligations. The right to each other’s society, comfort and affection, often referred to as ‘consortium’ is a fundamental aspect of marriage. Withdrawal from society of the other would mean withdrawal from marital obligation by either spouse,” the Court added.
After reviewing the evidence, the Court concluded that the wife’s decision to live separately since November 2015 was not adequately justified, rendering her ineligible for maintenance.
As a result, it held that the family court’s order was unjustified and subsequently overturned it.
