Maintenance Despite Restitution Decree: Rina Kumari (2025)

Restitution Decree Does Not Automatically Bar a Wife's Maintenance Under Section 125(4) CrPC: Supreme Court

Published: 21 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Supreme Court held that a husband's decree for restitution of conjugal rights, and the wife's non-compliance with it, do not by themselves attract the disqualification in Section 125(4) CrPC. Whether she still had sufficient reason to refuse to live with him must be decided on the evidence in each case, and the findings in the restitution suit do not bind the court hearing the maintenance petition (paras 29-31).

Key holdings

Non-compliance with a restitution decree is not, by itself, enough to attract Section 125(4) CrPC (para 29).

Findings in a restitution suit do not bind the court deciding a maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC (paras 30-31, 33).

Maintenance proceedings are civil in nature despite their place in the Code of Criminal Procedure (para 30).

Mental cruelty is judged on the cumulative effect of the conduct shown by the evidence (paras 36-37).

A husband who does nothing to execute his restitution decree may be found to lack bona fides (para 38).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The parties married on 01.05.2014 and separated in August 2015 (para 4). The husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights was decreed by the Family Court, Ranchi on 23.04.2022; the wife had filed a written statement but did not appear afterwards, and she did not obey the decree (paras 4-5). Earlier, on 15.02.2022, the Family Court, Dhanbad had granted her ₹10,000 a month as maintenance under Section 125 CrPC (para 6). The Jharkhand High Court set that order aside on 04.08.2023, holding that Section 125(4) applied because she had not returned despite the decree (para 7). She appealed (para 3).

Court's Findings

As earlier decisions hold, Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice meant to prevent destitution, and a wife's right to maintenance, unless she is disqualified, is an absolute right (paras 10, 13). High Courts had taken conflicting views on an unobeyed restitution decree (paras 15-26). As Kirtikant D. Vadodaria noted, the provision uses the word 'refusal', not 'failure' (para 27). The decree and its non-compliance are not determinative; the court must decide on the evidence whether the wife still had valid and sufficient reason to stay away (para 29). Maintenance proceedings are essentially civil in nature, and no rule makes findings in one proceeding binding in the other (paras 30-31). The two proceedings are independent, so the restitution judgment could not decide the maintenance claim (para 33). The High Court gave undue weight to findings that were partly uncontested and overlooked that the wife's witnesses were never cross-examined (para 35). Applying Parveen Mehta, the husband's neglect after her miscarriage and the denial of toilet and cooking facilities gave her just cause not to return (paras 35-37). Having obtained the decree, he sought neither execution nor divorce, which showed a lack of bona fides (paras 37-38).

Legal Principle

A decree for restitution of conjugal rights obtained by the husband, coupled with the wife's non-compliance, does not by itself disqualify her from maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC. The court must decide on the material before it whether she had valid and sufficient reason to refuse to live with him (para 29).

Precedents Relied Upon

Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat (1996) 4 SCC 479
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 27
A restitution decree against the wife does not by itself defeat her right to maintenance; the word is 'refusal'.
Amrita Singh v. Ratan Singh (2018) 17 SCC 737
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 28
A wife driven out by cruelty and dowry demands had reasonable grounds not to join the husband and was entitled to maintenance.
Mst. Jagir Kaur v. Jaswant Singh AIR 1963 SC 1521
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 30
Maintenance proceedings under Section 488 of the 1898 Code are in the nature of civil proceedings.

View all precedents (6)

Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi (2004) 1 SCC 438
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 30
A civil court decision binds a criminal court; not applied because maintenance proceedings are civil in nature.
Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta (2002) 5 SCC 706
Applied Discussed at ¶ 36
Mental cruelty is assessed on the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances.
Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri (Smt.) (2000) 3 SCC 180
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 38
A wife divorced on the ground of desertion may claim maintenance once she is a divorced wife.

Statutory Provisions