1981 AIR 1972 : 1981 SCC (4) 250 : 1982 SCR (1) 695
Criminal Appeal No. 602 of 1981
Supreme Court of India
Judgment dated: 14 September 1981
Bench: Syed Murtaza Fazal Ali and A.P. Sen, JJ.
HEADNOTES WITH PARAGRAPH NUMBERS
1. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 125(3), second proviso — Maintenance — Wife refusing to live with husband — “Just ground” — Scope.
[Paras 5–6, 11–12] — Where the husband offers to maintain his wife on condition that she lives with him, the Magistrate is required to consider the grounds of her refusal and may grant maintenance notwithstanding such offer if satisfied that she has a just ground for refusing to live with him. The expression “just ground” is not exhaustive and includes circumstances of a similar nature to those specifically contemplated by the statutory provision.
2. Husband's impotence — Inability to discharge marital obligations — Just ground for wife to live separately and claim maintenance.
[Para 15] — Where it is proved that the husband is impotent and unable to discharge his marital obligations, such impotence constitutes both legal and mental cruelty and is undoubtedly a just ground for the wife to refuse to live with him. She is consequently entitled to maintenance according to the husband's means.
3. Impotence — Conjugal relationship — Relevance under Section 125 CrPC — Maintenance provision not confined merely to food, clothing and shelter.
[Paras 7–10, 12] — The statutory remedy of maintenance cannot be divorced from the existence and nature of the marital relationship. The earlier view that Section 488 of the old Code, corresponding to Section 125 of the 1973 Code, was concerned only with food, clothing and lodging and had nothing to do with ordinary conjugal rights was held to be legally unsound and outdated.
4. Impotence — Sexual relationship — Marriage — Mental and physical well-being of wife.
[Para 14] — Sexual relationship is an important component of marriage. Persistent inability or refusal resulting in deprivation of marital intercourse may cause mental, psychological and physical harm and may amount to cruelty. The Court accepted that the concept of cruelty does not materially differ merely because the proceeding is one under criminal law rather than matrimonial/civil law.
5. Cruelty — Meaning — Same principles applicable in civil and criminal proceedings.
[Paras 12, 14] — The concept of legal or mental cruelty remains substantially the same whether considered in civil matrimonial proceedings or proceedings under Section 125 CrPC. General principles governing conduct amounting to cruelty cannot vary merely because the forum or statutory proceeding is different.
6. Section 125 CrPC — “Just ground” — Provision beneficial to neglected wife — Progressive interpretation.
[Paras 8–11] — The second proviso to Section 125(3), read with its Explanation, was intended to widen the circumstances in which a wife may justifiably refuse to live with her husband while still claiming maintenance. The provision is beneficial and should not be interpreted in an archaic manner which reduces the wife's entitlement merely to food, clothing and shelter.
7. Second marriage or mistress — Statutory illustration of “just ground” — Provision illustrative, not exhaustive.
[Paras 11–12] — The statutory provision treating the husband's contracting another marriage or keeping a mistress as a just ground for the wife's refusal to live with him is illustrative and not exhaustive. Other circumstances involving physical, mental or legal cruelty may also constitute just grounds, including proved impotence.
8. Dowry-related apprehension — Reasonable apprehension of physical harm — Just ground for separate residence.
[Para 12] — A wife's reasonable apprehension, arising from the husband's conduct, that she may suffer physical harm because of persistent dowry demands by the husband's parents or relatives may itself constitute a reasonable justification for refusing to live with the husband.
9. Muslim marriage — Section 125 CrPC — Personal law — Summary maintenance remedy applicable irrespective of religion.
[Para 5] — The remedy under Section 125 CrPC is a statutory summary remedy applicable to persons belonging to all religions and is not controlled by the personal law of the parties. The fact that the parties were married according to Sunni Muslim rites did not exclude the wife's claim under Section 125.
10. Contrary High Court decisions — Impotence not a just ground — Overruled.
[Paras 6–11, 15] — The earlier decisions of various High Courts which had taken the view that the husband's impotence was not a just ground enabling the wife to live separately and claim maintenance were held to be no longer good law and were overruled.
CASE FACTS
The respondent-wife was married to the appellant-husband on 27 May 1978 according to Sunni Muslim rites. She lived with the husband until July 1978.
During that period, the wife alleged that she discovered that her husband was physically incapable of having sexual relations with her and that he had himself admitted that he was impotent. She further alleged that she was maltreated and ultimately driven out of the matrimonial home on 11 July 1978.
The husband subsequently sent a registered notice dated 17 November 1978, asserting that he had no physical disability and expressing his willingness to keep the wife with him and discharge his marital obligations.
The wife had already instituted proceedings on 28 October 1978 seeking maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
Both the Metropolitan Magistrate and the High Court found as a matter of fact that the husband was physically incapable of having sexual relations with the wife, i.e. that he was impotent and unable to discharge his marital obligations.
However, the Magistrate held that impotence was not a “just cause” for the wife to refuse to live with the husband and dismissed her maintenance application.
The Gujarat High Court, in revision, took the contrary view. It held that the husband's proved impotence constituted a just ground for the wife to refuse to live with him and consequently awarded her ₹150 per month maintenance, having regard to the husband's means.
The husband appealed to the Supreme Court.
QUESTIONS OF LAW
The principal question before the Supreme Court was:
Whether a husband's proved impotence and consequent inability to discharge his marital obligations constitute a “just ground” under the second proviso to Section 125(3) CrPC enabling the wife to refuse to live with him and claim maintenance?
A connected question was whether the earlier decisions holding that impotence was not a sufficient ground for separate residence and maintenance represented the correct law.
LAW CONSIDERED
1. Section 125(3) CrPC
The second proviso permits the Magistrate to consider the wife's grounds for refusing to live with her husband and grant maintenance notwithstanding the husband's offer to maintain her, if the Court is satisfied that there is a just ground for such refusal. [Para 5]
2. Scope of “just ground”
The Court held that the provision is not exhaustive. The statutory illustration relating to a second marriage or mistress was intended to widen the scope of “just ground”; it did not limit the expression to those two circumstances. Physical, mental and legal cruelty of a similar nature could also constitute just grounds. [Paras 11–12]
3. Impotence as cruelty
The Court reasoned that where the husband is impotent and unable to discharge the fundamental marital obligation of sexual relations, compelling the wife to continue living with him may subject her to a life of mental and psychological suffering. The Court therefore treated proved impotence as legal as well as mental cruelty. [Para 14]
4. Conjugal relationship and maintenance
The Court rejected the narrow proposition that Section 125 is concerned merely with providing food, clothing and shelter. The statutory remedy is founded upon the marital relationship, and the Court can consider the husband's conduct and the nature of the conjugal relationship when determining whether the wife's refusal to live with him is justified. [Paras 7–10]
5. Personal law
The parties' marriage was according to Sunni Muslim rites, but Section 125 is a secular statutory remedy applicable to persons of all religions. Personal law does not exclude the wife from invoking the statutory remedy. [Para 5]
APPLICATION OF LAW
The Supreme Court noted that the finding of impotence was concurrent: both the Magistrate and High Court had found the husband physically incapable of sexual relations and unable to discharge his marital obligations. Therefore, the principal issue was purely one of law—whether that proved condition constituted a “just ground” under Section 125(3).
The Court held that it would be unjust to compel a wife to live with a husband who is incapable of marital intercourse and thereby subject her to continuing mental and psychological suffering.
The Court also rejected the older judicial approach which treated maintenance as merely a provision for food, clothing and lodging, holding such an approach to be outdated and inconsistent with the legislative purpose of the provision.
CONCLUSION / FINAL DECISION
The Supreme Court dismissed the husband's appeal and upheld the Gujarat High Court's order granting maintenance to the wife.
The Court authoritatively held:
Where it is proved that the husband is impotent and unable to discharge his marital obligations, such impotence amounts to both legal and mental cruelty and constitutes a just ground under the second proviso to Section 125(3) CrPC for the wife to refuse to live with her husband. The wife is consequently entitled to maintenance according to the husband's means.
The Court further declared that the contrary decisions of the High Courts, including the authorities relied upon by the husband, were no longer good law and stood overruled.
RATIO DECIDENDI
Proved impotence of the husband, resulting in his inability to discharge marital obligations, constitutes legal and mental cruelty and is a “just ground” within the meaning of the second proviso to Section 125(3) CrPC for the wife to refuse to live with him. Such refusal does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance according to the husband's means. The concept of “just ground” is illustrative and includes circumstances of physical, mental or legal cruelty; Section 125 is a secular statutory remedy applicable irrespective of the parties' personal law.
