{"id":8388,"date":"2026-06-16T18:13:48","date_gmt":"2026-06-16T12:43:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/?p=8388"},"modified":"2026-06-16T18:06:03","modified_gmt":"2026-06-16T12:36:03","slug":"maintenance-despite-no-cruelty","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/maintenance-despite-no-cruelty\/","title":{"rendered":"Husband Is Innocent And Cruelty Was Not Established; Still Wife’s Claim Of Maintenance Cannot Be Denied: Bombay High Court"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Can a husband be ordered to pay maintenance even when he wasn’t guilty of cruelty? Bombay High Court says Yes, holding that a wife’s right to maintenance does not depend solely on the husband’s fault.<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

NAGPUR: <\/em>Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke<\/strong> of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court<\/a><\/strong> dismissed a husband’s revision petition challenging a Family Court<\/a> order granting maintenance to his wife under Section 125 CrPC<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The couple got married on 16 April 2012. According to the wife, disputes began immediately after marriage when she was allegedly harassed by her husband’s family over dowry demands. She claimed that on 4 June 2014, her husband assaulted her with a waist belt, forcing her to approach the police, following which she was referred to the Women Cell. Despite several attempts by her family to resolve the dispute, she ultimately returned to her parental home.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The wife then approached the Family Court, stating that her husband, employed as a Gangman in the Railway Department<\/strong> and earning around Rs 25,000 per month, had neglected to maintain her. The Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs 5,000 per month from January 2017, later increasing it to Rs 6,000 and subsequently Rs 7,000.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before the High Court, the husband argued that the wife had left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause<\/strong> and that her decision to file a divorce petition showed she was unwilling to live with him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the High Court found that the wife’s testimony regarding the assault remained unshaken during cross-examination<\/strong>. The Court also noted that the husband failed to produce any evidence to show that she was financially independent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Significantly, during cross-examination, the husband admitted that he had made no effort to find out how his wife was living after she left the matrimonial home. The Court held that this conduct itself indicated neglect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Explaining the purpose of maintenance proceedings, the Court observed that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

“The object of Section 125 of the CrPC is to provide a summary remedy to save dependents from destitution and vagrancy… jurisdiction is preventive rather than remedial or punitive.”<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The Court further clarified that neglect need not always be express and that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

“Refusal or neglect on the part of husband may be proved not only by express words, but also by his conduct.”<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

In an important observation, the Court held that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

“Torture or ill-treatment in the husband’s house would be sufficient for refusal by the wife-claimant to live with her husband, even though husband may not be guilty personally. Where a wife cannot reasonably hope to live with dignity with her husband she may refuse to live with him.”<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajnesh vs Neha<\/em><\/strong>, the Court held that since there was nothing on record to show that the wife could maintain herself and the husband’s conduct reflected neglect, the Family Court’s order was fair and reasonable<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Accordingly, the Bombay High Court dismissed the husband’s revision application<\/strong> and directed him to clear all maintenance arrears within one month.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EXPLANATORY TABLE: LAWS AND SECTIONS INVOLVED<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td>Purpose<\/strong><\/td>How It Applied In This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead>
Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 144 BNSS<\/a>)<\/strong><\/td>Provides a summary remedy to wives, children and parents who are unable to maintain themselves<\/td>The wife sought maintenance <\/a>alleging neglect and refusal by the husband<\/td><\/tr>
Section 125(4) CrPC<\/strong><\/td>Disqualifies a wife from maintenance if she refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason<\/td>The husband argued that the wife left voluntarily; the Court held she had sufficient reason to live separately<\/td><\/tr>
Section 125(5) CrPC<\/strong><\/td>Allows cancellation of maintenance in specified circumstances<\/td>The Court referred to this provision while explaining that the law does not exhaustively define “sufficient cause”<\/td><\/tr>
Second Proviso to Section 125(3) CrPC<\/strong><\/td>Even if the husband offers to maintain the wife subject to cohabitation, the Court can examine whether her refusal is justified<\/td>The Court noted that a wife’s reasons for refusing to live with her husband must be objectively assessed<\/td><\/tr>
Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324<\/strong><\/td>Supreme Court guidelines for determining maintenance<\/td>Relied upon to reaffirm factors such as status of parties, needs of claimant and justification for separate residence  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

CASE DETAILS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n