IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the wife, even if not complying with the decree of restitution of conjugal rights, is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The judgment emphasizes the social justice objective of maintenance laws and the duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and children, regardless of the wife's work or financial support from her parents.

ORDER :

All the three petitions are filed by the wife calling in question the judgment and award passed by the Family Courts in dismissing the petitions filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respective petitioners – wife on the ground that in spite of decree of restitution of conjugal rights is passed against the wife but the wife did not join companionship of the respondent – husband. Therefore, the Family Courts have dismissed the petitions filed for maintenance.

2. Though the above said three petitions are ordered under different facts and circumstances but one common fact involved in these cases are that the petitioners were constrained to live separately from the respondents – husband on the ground that the respondents – husband have subjected the petitioners – wife to cruelty and ill-treatment. Therefore, the petitioners are living separately and thus, filed claim petitions praying for maintenance by invoking provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by filing respective petitions. The Family Courts have dismissed the petitions filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that respondents – husband have filed petitions invoking the provision of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights and decree is passed for restitution of conjugal rights. But the petitioners – wife did not join companionship of the respondents – husband. Therefore, on this ground that the wife did not join matrimonial home of the husband, which amounts to voluntary desertion, hence, the Family Court has concluded that the petitioners – wife are not entitled for maintenance. Accordingly, dismissed the petitions.

3. Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the records.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners – wife in all the cases submitted that Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is the beneficial legislation achieving social justice to destitute wife, children and old aged parents. When on certain allegations that the respondents – husband have subjected the petitioners – wife into cruelty, ill-treatment and harassment to bring dowry amounts constraining the petitioners – wife to live separately. The wife is entitled social protection and maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., which is enacted for providing maintenance to the wife. Therefore, submitted that just because a decree for restitution of conjugal rights is obtained by husband and wife do not join husband that does not mean that the wife is not entitled for maintenance from the husband. He also submitted that just because the wife does not join companionship of husband in spite of decree of restitution of conjugal rights, that does not amount to voluntary desertion by the wife. Therefore, submitted that the Family Court without following principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the spirit of enacting Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has erroneously dismissed the petition filed for maintenance. He further submitted that when a divorced wife is entitled for maintenance but denying maintenance to the destitute wife though divorce is not obtained is amounting to discrimination among the wife. Therefore, irrespective of decree of restitution of conjugal rights, the wife is entitled for maintenance. Therefore, prays to allow the petitions and grant maintenance to wife.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents – husband submitted that when a decree for restitution of conjugal rights is obtained by the husband and if wife does not join matrimonial house of the husband, it amounts to voluntary desertion by wife which attracts the provisions of Section 125 (4) of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the Family Court is justified in dismissing the claim petitions. Hence prays to dismiss the petitions.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents – husband places reliance on the following judgments:-

i. Sri.Subbaraya V. Manja vs. Smt.Rajalaksmi and another in R.P.F.C.No.110/2012 dated 24.04.2014 (subbaraya case);

ii. In the case of Khursheed Ahmad vs. Smt.Zakira re