A significant clarification has emerged on the scope of maintenance rights under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the Chhattisgarh High Court affirmed that a wife’s short-lived cohabitation does not automatically forfeit her entitlement to maintenance if she remains financially dependent and unable to sustain herself. The judgment reinforces the protective intent of Section 125 CrPC, prioritizing economic security over rigid interpretations of marital conduct.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The respondent-wife, a medical practitioner, filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC seeking maintenance from her husband after their marriage collapsed within days. She alleged that the applicant-husband misrepresented his income and background on a matrimonial platform, and that immediately after marriage, his family demanded substantial dowry, subjected her to emotional abuse, and prevented conjugal relations. She claimed she was forced to leave the matrimonial home after one night and was subsequently abandoned.
Procedural History
- June 2019: Marriage performed; respondent left matrimonial home after one night
- 2021: Respondent filed MJC No. 539/2021 before Family Court, Durg, seeking Rs. 50,000/month maintenance and return of marriage gifts
- December 2022: Family Court awarded Rs. 15,800/month maintenance, rejecting other claims
- 2023: Husband filed Criminal Revision No. 46/2023 before Chhattisgarh High Court challenging the quantum and validity of the order
Relief Sought
The applicant sought annulment of the maintenance order, arguing that the wife’s voluntary desertion and independent income disqualified her from relief. The respondent sought affirmation of the Family Court’s award, asserting her financial vulnerability despite her profession.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a wife’s brief stay in the matrimonial home - followed by departure due to alleged cruelty and dowry demands - constitutes voluntary desertion sufficient to bar her claim for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, even if she lacks independent means to support herself.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel argued that the wife left the matrimonial home voluntarily after one night, without any provocation from the husband, and that she had not been refused maintenance. He cited Rajnesh v. Neha to assert that voluntary desertion extinguishes the right to maintenance. He further contended that the wife, as a doctor earning Rs. 60,000 - 70,000/month, was financially independent and that the Family Court erred in ignoring her income and the husband’s liabilities.
For the Respondent
Counsel countered that the wife’s departure was not voluntary but compelled by harassment, dowry demands, and denial of basic necessities. She relied on Smt. Sunita Devi v. Smt. Kamla Devi to argue that economic vulnerability, not mere physical separation, determines entitlement. She emphasized that her income was insufficient to cover medical expenses and rent, and that the husband had made no consistent financial contribution after the marriage.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of voluntary desertion under Section 125 CrPC, distinguishing it from separation caused by cruelty or coercion. It held that desertion must be intentional, unjustified, and without reasonable cause. The Court found that the wife’s departure followed immediate demands for dowry, denial of food, and obstruction of marital relations - factors that negate any inference of voluntary abandonment.
"The mere fact that the wife stayed for one night does not ipso facto establish desertion. The circumstances leading to her departure must be examined in their totality."
The Court rejected the husband’s claim that the wife’s medical income disqualified her, noting that maintenance under Section 125 is not a reward for marital fidelity but a social safety net. It emphasized that the wife’s income was insufficient to cover her medical debt, rent, and daily needs, especially after being abandoned. The Family Court’s assessment of income, expenses, and conduct was found to be balanced and factually grounded.
The Court also dismissed the argument that the husband’s financial liabilities (including support for elderly parents) justified reducing maintenance, holding that a husband’s obligation to maintain his wife under Section 125 is primary and non-negotiable.
The Verdict
The respondent won. The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the Family Court’s order, holding that a wife’s brief cohabitation does not bar maintenance under Section 125 CrPC if her departure was due to cruelty or dowry demands, and that her financial need, not her profession, determines entitlement. The maintenance award of Rs. 15,800/month was affirmed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Voluntary Desertion Requires Proven Intent
- Practitioners must now prove that the wife’s departure was intentional, unjustified, and without provocation to invoke the defense of voluntary desertion
- Mere absence from the matrimonial home, even for a short period, is insufficient without evidence of malice or abandonment
- Evidence of dowry demands, emotional abuse, or denial of basic needs will rebut claims of desertion
Income Alone Does Not Disqualify Maintenance
- A wife’s professional income does not automatically disqualify her from maintenance if it is inadequate to meet her basic needs
- Courts must assess net disposable income after medical, housing, and debt obligations
- The burden shifts to the husband to prove the wife’s financial self-sufficiency beyond mere salary claims
Maintenance Is a Statutory Right, Not a Marital Privilege
- Section 125 CrPC operates independently of matrimonial fault
- Courts must prioritize economic justice over moral judgments about marital conduct
- Maintenance orders should reflect the wife’s actual living costs, not hypothetical earning capacity
