Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 85

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJIV KHANNA, CJI., SANJAY KUMAR, J.
Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena – Appellant
Versus
Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2025 [Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5896 of 2024]
Decided On : 10-01-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Mohini Priya, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anup Kumar, AOR Ms. Pragya Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Shruti Singh, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Prasad Deo, Adv. Mrs. Neha Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Shivam Kumar, Adv. Mr. Awanish Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Standing Counsel, Adv. Ms. Madhusmita Bora, AOR Mr. Shiv Ram Sharma, Adv. Mr. Dipankar Singh, Adv. Mrs. Anupama Sharma, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Refusal to pay maintenance – Mere passing of decree for restitution of conjugal rights at husband’s behest and non-compliance therewith by wife would not, by itself, be sufficient to attract disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. – It would depend on facts of individual case.
(2) Maintenance proceedings are essentially civil in nature – Even if non-compliance with an order for payment of maintenance entails penal consequences, as may other decrees of a Civil Court, such proceedings would not qualify as or become criminal proceedings.
(3) Maintenance proceedings are essentially civil in nature – Even if non-compliance with order for payment of maintenance entails penal consequences, as may other decrees of Civil Court, such proceedings would not qualify as or become criminal proceedings.

Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 125(4) [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 144(4)] – Maintenance – Refusal to pay – Mere passing of decree for restitution of conjugal rights at husband’s behest and non-compliance therewith by wife would not, by itself, be sufficient to attract disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. – It would depend on facts of individual case and it would have to be decided, on strength of material and evidence available, whether wife still had valid and sufficient reason to refuse to live with her husband, despite such decree – There can be no hard and fast rule in this regard and it must invariably depend on distinctive facts and circumstances obtaining in each particular case – Decree for restitution of conjugal rights secured by husband coupled with non-compliance therewith by wife would not be determinative straightaway either of her right to maintenance or applicability of disqualification under Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. (Para 29)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 125(4) [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 144(4)] – Maintenance – Refusal to pay – Refusal by wife to abide by decree for restitution of conjugal rights secured by husband – Two proceedings are altogether independent and are not directly or even indirectly connected, in the sense that proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. do not arise from proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights – Standard of proof in civil proceedings is preponderance of probabilities whereas, in criminal prosecution, conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt – Such principle cannot be applied per se to proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by relying upon Judgment passed by Civil Court on application for restitution of conjugal rights – Considering behaviour of her husband, appellant had just cause to not return to her matrimonial home, despite restitution decree – Having secured restitution decree, her husband did nothing – He neither sought execution of decree under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC nor did he seek decree of divorce under Section 13(1A)(ii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Her refusal to live with him, notwithstanding passing of decree for restitution of conjugal rights, cannot be held against her – In consequence, disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. was not attracted and High Court erred grievously in applying the same and holding that appellant was not entitled to maintenance granted to her by Family Court – Judgment passed by High Court set aside and order passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, restored. (Paras 33, 37, 38 and 39)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 125 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 144] – Maintenance proceedings – Maintenance proceedings are essentially civil in nature – Even if non-compliance with an order for payment of maintenance entails penal consequences, as may other decrees of a Civil Court, such proceedings would not qualify as or become criminal proceedings – Nomenclature of maintenance proceedings initiated under Code of Criminal Procedure, as those provisions find place therein, cannot be held to be conclusive as to nature of such proceedings. (Para 30)
(D) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 40 to 43 [Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Sections 34 to 37] – Judgments in rem and judgments in personam – Judgments passed on merits in civil proceedings have been accepted as sufficient cause to discharge or acquit a person facing prosecution on same grounds – This dictum is applied especially in cases where civil adjudication proceedings, like in tax cases, lead to initiation of prosecution by authorities – Such cases are, however, different as there is direct connect between civil proceedings and prosecution which is launched – Facts and allegations leading to prosecution directly arise as a result of civil proceedings. (Para 33)
Facts of the case:
Will a husband, who secures a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, stand absolved of paying maintenance to his wife by virtue of Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if his wife refuses to abide by said decree and return to matrimonial home?
Findings of Court:
Respondent No. 1 herein, shall pay maintenance @ 10,000/- per month to appellant, on or before 10th day of each calendar month. Such maintenance would be payable from the date of filing of maintenance application. Arrears of the maintenance shall be paid by Respondent No. 1 in three equal installments, i.e., first instalment by 30.04.2025, second instalment by 31.08.2025 and third and final instalment by 31.12.2025.
Result : Appeal allowed. Judgment of High Court set aside.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points:

A mere passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights at the husband's request, coupled with non-compliance by the wife, does not automatically disqualify her from receiving maintenance under Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. The decision depends on the specific facts and evidence of each case (!) (!) .
Maintenance proceedings are fundamentally civil in nature. Even if non-compliance with maintenance orders may attract penal consequences, such proceedings do not become criminal proceedings solely because of the nature of the order (!) (!) .
The standard of proof in civil proceedings is based on preponderance of probabilities, whereas in criminal proceedings, it is beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, civil judgments, including those for restitution of conjugal rights, are not automatically conclusive or binding in criminal maintenance proceedings (!) (!) .
Civil judgments, including those in the context of restitution of conjugal rights, are relevant for evidentiary purposes but are not always conclusive proof of the facts they establish, especially when the proceedings are independent and not directly connected (!) (!) .
The findings in civil proceedings, such as those for restitution of conjugal rights, do not necessarily determine the outcome of maintenance claims under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. The conduct of the wife, reasons for her withdrawal, and circumstances of each case must be carefully assessed (!) (!) (!) .
If a wife refuses to obey a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and does not return to the matrimonial home, this alone does not automatically disqualify her from claiming maintenance. The reasons for her refusal and her conduct are crucial considerations (!) (!) .
A wife who has obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights but has not taken steps to enforce it, or has valid reasons for not returning, can still be entitled to maintenance. The mere existence of such a decree does not bar her claim, especially if her conduct is justified by circumstances such as ill-treatment or mental cruelty (!) (!) .
The applicability of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. is contingent upon whether the wife’s refusal to live with her husband is justified by her conduct or circumstances, rather than solely on the existence of a civil decree (!) (!) .
The disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. is not automatic; it requires a factual assessment of whether the wife had sufficient and valid reasons for her conduct. If she had just cause, the disqualification does not apply (!) (!) .
The decision emphasizes that each case must be judged on its own merits, considering all relevant facts and evidence, rather than applying a rigid rule based solely on the civil decree or non-compliance (!) (!) .
The judgment underscores that the independence of criminal and civil proceedings must be maintained, and findings in civil cases are not binding on criminal courts or proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the court restored the maintenance order in favor of the wife, affirming her entitlement based on her circumstances and conduct, and set aside the High Court’s judgment that had disqualified her from receiving maintenance (!) .

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Will a husband, who secures a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, stand absolved of paying maintenance to his wife by virtue of Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if his wife refuses to abide by the said decree and return to the matrimonial home?

3. This intriguing question was answered in the affirmative by a learned Judge of the Jharkhand High Court, vide order dated 04.08.2023 in Criminal Revision No. 440 of 2022. Aggrieved, Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena, the wife, is in appeal.

4. The appellant, Reena, and respondent No. 1, Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato, were married on 01.05.2014. They parted ways in August, 2015, and Reena started living at her parental home. Original (MTS) Suit No. 495 of 2018 was instituted by Dinesh on 20.07.2018 before the Family Court, Ranchi, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights. Reena contested the suit by filing her written statement on 25.04.2019. Dinesh claimed that Reena left the matrimonial home on 21.08.2015 and did not return thereafter. According to him, attempts were made during August and October, 2017, to bring her back but she refused to come. He stated that his parents were very old and needed to be taken care of but Reena was not there to do so. On the contrary, Reena asserted that she was subjected to torture and mental agony by Dinesh, who demanded Rs. 5 lakh to purchase a four-wheeler. She alleged that he had extramarital relations. Further, she stated that she suffered a miscarriage on 28.01.2015 but Dinesh did not even come to see her from his workplace at Ranchi and it was her brother who took her to Dhanbad for medical care. She claimed that it was Dinesh who persuaded her to go to her parental home in August, 2015, on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan and he never truly tried to bring her back thereafter. She claimed that it was she who had gone to her matrimonial home in the year 2017 along with her relations but they were forced to return as Dinesh and his family members treated them badly. She stated that she was ready to return to her matrimonial home if Dinesh did not demand money to purchase a car and if she was not ill-treated by him and his family members. Her further conditions were that she should be allowed to use the washroom/toilet in the house, as she was not allowed to do so earlier, and she should also be allowed to use an LPG stove to prepare food, as she had to do so by using wood and coal hitherto. She concluded her written statement by asserting that the suit for restitution filed by Dinesh was nothing but a tool to save himself from the effect of laws which were put in place for women’s safety and prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs. Reena, despite filing the above written statement, failed to appear thereafter before the Family Court.

5. By judgment dated 23.04.2022, the learned Additional Principal Judge-II, Additional Family Court, Ranchi, decreed Dinesh’s suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Therein, it was noted that Dinesh had attempted to bring his wife back only once but, relying on the evidence of his witnesses, the Family Court concluded that he wanted to live with her as husband and wife. As no evidence was adduced by Reena, the Family Court held against her as regards her allegation that Dinesh demanded Rs. 5 lakh to purchase a car and her allegation of ill treatment and torture by him and his family members. As to her two conditions, the Family Court noted that Dinesh was a Junior Lineman in Jharkhand State Electricity Board and observed that he would be expected to provide an LPG stove to his wife to prepare food. Opining that there must be something more serious than the ordinary wear and tear of married life for a wife to withdraw from the society of her husband, the Family Court held in Dinesh’s favour. He was, however, directed to ensure the respect and dignity of his wife and to see that her condit