Court affirms Family Court's decision, emphasizes husband's obligation despite wife's separate residence due to alleged abuse.
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench has upheld a Family Court's decision to grant maintenance to a wife, Lalita w/o Manoj Jamankar, despite her living separately from her husband, Manoj Kaluramji Jamankar. The judgment, delivered by Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke on April 10, 2026, reinforces the protective intent of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973, which mandates maintenance to prevent destitution and vagrancy.
The legal dispute arose when Lalita filed for maintenance, alleging that she was subjected to physical and mental harassment by her husband and his family over dowry demands. The Family Court granted her maintenance, which Manoj challenged, arguing that Lalita left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and had filed for divorce, indicating her unwillingness to cohabit.
Justice Joshi-Phalke, after a detailed examination of the evidence, concluded that the husband's actions constituted neglect and refusal to maintain his wife. The court noted that Lalita's allegations of abuse were substantiated by her testimony and that the husband had not contested her divorce petition. The judgment emphasized that torture or ill-treatment provides sufficient grounds for a wife to live separately and still claim maintenance.
The court highlighted the social objective of Section 125 CrPC, designed to offer a swift remedy to dependents and prevent destitution. It reaffirmed that the burden of proof regarding the wife's refusal to live with the husband initially lies with the husband, and once established, the wife must demonstrate reasonable cause for living apart.
Justice Joshi-Phalke's ruling also referenced the Supreme Court's stance in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha, underscoring that factors such as the parties' status, the claimant's reasonable needs, and the justification for living separately must be considered when determining maintenance.
The judgment ordered the husband to clear the arrears of maintenance within a month, concluding that the Family Court's decision was just and reasonable under the circumstances. The case underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the rights of women under existing legal frameworks.
Bottom line:-
Section 125 CrPC - Maintenance to wife - Refusal and neglect by husband to maintain wife established - Wife entitled to maintenance even if she resides separately due to torture or ill-treatment - Burden of proving reasonable cause for living separately lies with wife only after husband discharges initial burden of proving wife's refusal to live with him.
Statutory provision(s): Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Manoj Kaluramji Jamankar v. Lalita, (Bombay)(Nagpur Bench) : Law Finder Doc id # 2907634
