FINDINGS IN RESTITUTION PROCEEDINGS – WHETHER BINDING IN MAINTENANCE PROCEEDINGS Maintenance proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are essentially civil and summary in nature. Findings recorded in restitution proceedings are relevant evidence but are not conclusive or binding upon the Court deciding maintenance proceedings. Both proceedings are independent and must be adjudicated on the evidence produced therein. (Paras 30–35) Held: Findings in a decree for restitution of conjugal rights do not conclusively determine the wife's entitlement to maintenance. (Paras 30–35)

advocatemmmohan

Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato

2025 INSC 55 – Supreme Court of India

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 125(4) – Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Maintenance – Whether decree for restitution of conjugal rights by itself disentitles wife from claiming maintenance – Scope of “refusal to live with husband” – Social justice jurisprudence.

---

A. MAINTENANCE – OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF SECTION 125 Cr.P.C.

Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice intended to prevent destitution, starvation and vagrancy of wives, children and parents. The provision must receive a liberal and purposive interpretation consistent with constitutional values of dignity, equality and social welfare. (Paras 9–13)

Held: Maintenance proceedings are meant to alleviate financial hardship and secure a dignified existence for a dependent spouse. (Paras 10–13)

---

B. RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS – WHETHER DECREE AUTOMATICALLY BARS MAINTENANCE

A decree for restitution of conjugal rights obtained by the husband, coupled with the wife's failure to return to the matrimonial home, does not automatically attract the disqualification contained in Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. Each case must be examined on its own facts to determine whether the wife continues to have sufficient and justifiable reasons for living separately. (Paras 29, 35–38)

Held: Mere existence of a restitution decree is not determinative of the wife's entitlement to maintenance. (Para 29)

---

C. SECTION 125(4) Cr.P.C. – “REFUSES TO LIVE WITH HER HUSBAND” – MEANING

The statutory expression employed is “refuses” and not merely “fails”. The Court must ascertain whether the wife's conduct amounts to an unjustified refusal or whether sufficient cause exists for her separate residence. (Paras 14, 27, 29)

Held: Refusal without sufficient reason alone attracts disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. (Paras 14, 29)

---

D. FINDINGS IN RESTITUTION PROCEEDINGS – WHETHER BINDING IN MAINTENANCE PROCEEDINGS

Maintenance proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are essentially civil and summary in nature. Findings recorded in restitution proceedings are relevant evidence but are not conclusive or binding upon the Court deciding maintenance proceedings. Both proceedings are independent and must be adjudicated on the evidence produced therein. (Paras 30–35)

Held: Findings in a decree for restitution of conjugal rights do not conclusively determine the wife's entitlement to maintenance. (Paras 30–35)

---

E. MENTAL CRUELTY – SUFFICIENT REASON TO LIVE SEPARATELY

Mental cruelty is to be assessed cumulatively from the conduct of the parties and surrounding circumstances. Ill-treatment, neglect during serious medical conditions, denial of dignity and humiliating treatment may constitute sufficient cause for the wife to refuse cohabitation. (Paras 35–37)

Held: Husband's conduct in neglecting the wife during miscarriage, coupled with other instances of ill-treatment, constituted sufficient reason for her to stay away from the matrimonial home. (Paras 35–37)

---

F. RESTITUTION DECREE – SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF HUSBAND – RELEVANCE

Where, after obtaining a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the husband neither seeks execution of the decree nor pursues any genuine effort towards reconciliation, such conduct may indicate lack of bona fides and may be relevant in assessing the wife's claim for maintenance. (Paras 37–38)

Held: Husband's inaction after obtaining restitution decree reflected absence of genuine intention to resume matrimonial life and supported the wife's claim for maintenance. (Paras 37–38)

---

G. MAINTENANCE – RIGHT OF WIFE – CONTINUING ENTITLEMENT

A wife cannot be deprived of maintenance merely because she did not comply with a restitution decree, where circumstances establish that she had reasonable and sufficient cause to live separately. (Paras 29, 38)

Held: Wife remained entitled to maintenance notwithstanding the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. (Paras 38–39)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. A decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not ipso facto disentitle a wife from maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
2. The Court must independently determine whether the wife had sufficient reason to live separately.
3. Findings in restitution proceedings are relevant but not conclusive in maintenance proceedings.
4. Mental cruelty, neglect, humiliation and denial of dignity constitute valid grounds for separate residence.
5. Section 125 Cr.P.C. being a social welfare legislation must receive a liberal interpretation in favour of protecting dependent spouses. (Paras 29–38)

---

HELD

Appeal Allowed. The judgment of the Jharkhand High Court denying maintenance on the basis of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was set aside. The Family Court's order granting maintenance of ₹10,000/- per month to the wife from the date of the maintenance petition was restored. (Paras 38–39)

(Paras 29–39).