TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the wife, by itself, bars a claim for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) Whether the wife was entitled to maintenance on proof of the husband's sufficient means, her inability to maintain herself, and neglect or refusal to maintain her.
Issue (i): Whether a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the wife, by itself, bars a claim for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: Section 125(1) provides maintenance on proof of sufficient means, neglect or refusal to maintain, and inability of the wife to maintain herself. The bar in Section 125(4) applies only where the wife refuses to live with the husband without sufficient reason. Mere separate residence, or a finding in restitution proceedings that the wife is living separately without valid reason, is not the same as refusal to live. The considerations in a restitution petition and a maintenance petition are distinct, and a restitution decree does not, by itself, extinguish the statutory right to maintenance.
Conclusion: A decree for restitution of conjugal rights is not, by itself, a ground to reject the wife's claim for maintenance.
Issue (ii): Whether the wife was entitled to maintenance on proof of the husband's sufficient means, her inability to maintain herself, and neglect or refusal to maintain her.
Analysis: The husband's sufficient means were found, and there was no material to show that the wife could maintain herself. There was also no proof that she had refused to live with him within the meaning of Section 125(4). In those circumstances, the statutory requirements under Section 125(1) stood satisfied, and the husband remained liable to pay maintenance.
Conclusion: The wife was entitled to maintenance, and the order rejecting her claim was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The refusal of maintenance to the wife was set aside, and maintenance was directed to be paid in her favour, leaving open the statutory remedies concerning any future offer by the husband or cancellation on permitted grounds.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a wife's separate residence or an adverse decree in restitution proceedings does not, by itself, disentitle her to maintenance; disqualification arises only on proof of refusal to live without sufficient reason, living in adultery, or mutual consent to live separately.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
