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 ruled that a wife who living separately from her husband without sufficient justification is not eligible for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) [XXX v XXX].
Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that under Section 125(4) of the CrPC, a wife cannot seek maintenance unless she provides evidence of cruelty, desertion, or other compelling reasons that warrant living separately.
“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 emphasized that Sub-section (4) of Section 125 clearly bars a wife from claiming maintenance if she refuses to live with her husband without valid justification.
Accordingly, the judge provided relief to the husband by overturning a family court order that had directed him to pay maintenance to his wife under Section 125 CrPC.
The case originated from a maintenance petition submitted by the wife against her husband in a family court in Thrissur.
The couple married in January 2008 and welcomed a child in April 2013.
Marital conflicts emerged in 2015, resulting in multiple legal proceedings, including custody disputes and a divorce petition.
In April 2017, the family court granted the couple a divorce and directed the husband to provide ₹25,000 per month as maintenance to his wife.
Dissatisfied with this ruling, the husband filed a revision petition before the High Court.
The husband contested the order, arguing that his wife left their matrimonial home on November 16, 2015, without any valid reason, leaving behind their two-year-old child.
He asserted that there was no evidence of ill-treatment and that his wife had voluntarily chosen to live separately.
Conversely, the wife’s counsel argued that she was forced to leave due to her husband’s mistreatment, making her eligible for maintenance.
After examining the evidence, the Court noted that the wife had neither lodged a police complaint regarding the alleged ill-treatment nor provided any other proof of cruelty.
The Court also took note of the family court’s observation that the wife left her husband with the intent of “teaching him a lesson.”
Additionally, it clarified that the right of a married couple to each other’s companionship, support, and affection—commonly referred to as “consortium”—is a fundamental element of marriage. When either spouse unreasonably withdraws from the society of the other without a valid reason, it constitutes a failure to uphold marital obligations.
“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 evaluating the evidence, the Court determined that the wife’s decision to live separately since November 2015 lacked sufficient justification, making her ineligible for maintenance.
Consequently, it ruled that the family court’s order was unsustainable and accordingly set it aside.