Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court clarified that maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. are civil in nature despite involving penal consequences for non-compliance. The bench states that such proceedings aim for effective and speedy remedies via Criminal Courts, as they are better equipped for enforcement than civil litigation.  

• The Court also held that a wife's valid refusal to comply with a restitution of conjugal rights decree does not bar her from claiming maintenance. 
• CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar held in the matter of Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena Versus Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato and another 

What was the Background of Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato and another,2024 ? 

• Rina Kumari (Reena) and Dinesh Kumar Mahto were married on 1st May, 2014, but separated in August 2015 when Reena went to live at her parental home. 
• In January 2015, Reena had suffered a miscarriage, during which time Dinesh neither visited her nor bore her medical expenses - her brother had to take her to Dhanbad for treatment. 
• While at her matrimonial home, Reena alleged she was subjected to torture and mental agony, with Dinesh demanding ₹5 lakhs to purchase a four-wheeler, and she wasn't allowed to use the toilet or LPG stove for cooking. 
• In July 2018, Dinesh filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, Ranchi, claiming Reena had left without reason and wasn't helping care for his elderly parents. 
• In August 2018, Reena filed a criminal complaint against Dinesh under Section 498A IPC (domestic cruelty), which led to his imprisonment and temporary suspension from his job as a Junior Engineer in the Electricity Board. 
• In August 2019, Reena filed for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, which was granted by the Family Court in February 2022, ordering Dinesh to pay ₹10,000 monthly given his net salary of ₹43,211. 
• In April 2022, the Family Court decreed in favor of Dinesh in the restitution suit, directing Reena to resume conjugal life within two months, which she did not comply with. 
• Dinesh challenged the maintenance order through a criminal revision petition in the Jharkhand High Court, arguing that since Reena refused to comply with the restitution decree, she wasn't entitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC. 
• After the High Court ruled in Dinesh's favor, Reena appealed to the Supreme Court, leading to the present case. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice, specifically enacted to protect women and children, falling within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution. 
• The Court observed that maintenance proceedings are essentially civil in nature, and their inclusion in the Criminal Procedure Code was primarily to provide a speedier and more economical remedy than that available in Civil Courts. 
• The Court held that mere passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and non-compliance thereof by the wife would not, by itself, be sufficient to attract the disqualification under Section 125(4) CrPC; each case must be decided on its individual merits. 
• The Court noted that findings in proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights cannot be conclusively binding on proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act and established judicial precedents. 
• On mental cruelty, the Court observed that it must be assessed cumulatively based on the totality of circumstances and behavioral patterns, rather than isolated instances of misconduct. 
• The Court found that Dinesh's conduct in ignoring Reena after her miscarriage, coupled with the proven ill-treatment in her matrimonial home, constituted sufficient reason for her to stay away from the matrimonial home despite the restitution decree. 
• The Court critically observed that Dinesh's inaction in executing the restitution decree or seeking divorce thereafter revealed his lack of bonafides and demonstrated an attempt to evade his responsibility towards his wife while using the decree as a shield against maintenance claims. 
• The Court states that the wife's "failure" to live with her husband is distinct from "refusal," noting that the crucial word chosen in Section 125(4) CrPC is "refusal" rather than "failure." 

What is Restitution of Conjugal Rights? 

• Restitution of Conjugal Rights is a legal remedy provided under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, aimed at restoring matrimonial cohabitation between spouses who previously enjoyed conjugal rights but are now living separately. 
• This remedy can be sought by either spouse when the other has withdrawn from their company without reasonable excuse, with the burden of proving reasonable excuse falling on the withdrawing spouse. 
• To seek this remedy, three essential conditions must be met:  
  • The parties must be legally married,  
  • One spouse must have withdrawn from the other's society,  
  • Such withdrawal must be without valid justification. 
• The petition must be filed in the Family Court with appropriate jurisdiction -  
  • Either where the marriage was solemnized, where the respondent resides, where the couple last lived together,  
  • Where the wife resides if she is the petitioner. 
• The court will grant the decree only after being satisfied that the statements in the petition are true and there are no legal grounds for rejecting the application. 
• Once the decree is passed, it creates a legal obligation for the respondent to resume cohabitation with the petitioner. 
• If the respondent fails to comply with the decree within one year of its passing, it becomes a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, allowing either party to seek dissolution of marriage. 

What is Section 9 of HMA, 1955? 

• Section 9 of HMA,1955 deals with Restitution of conjugal right. 
• This section provides a legal remedy to either spouse when the other has withdrawn from living together or cohabitation without reasonable justification. 
• The spouse who feels wronged (aggrieved party) can file a petition in the district court seeking an order for restoration of conjugal rights. 
• The court must be satisfied of two conditions before granting the decree:  
  • The statements made in the petition are true 
  • There are no legal grounds to reject the application 
• The burden of proof lies specifically on the spouse who has withdrawn from the marriage to prove they had reasonable excuse for doing so. 
• "Withdrawal from society" in this context means ceasing to live together as husband and wife, effectively ending marital cohabitation. 
• The section is gender-neutral, allowing either husband or wife to seek this remedy if their spouse has withdrawn from the marriage. 
• The term "reasonable excuse" is not defined in the Act, leaving it to the courts to determine what constitutes a valid reason for withdrawal based on the facts and circumstances of each case. 
• The purpose of this section is to preserve the matrimonial relationship by providing a legal mechanism to bring back the withdrawing spouse to the matrimonial home. 

What is Section 125(4) of CrPC,1973? 

• Section 125 of CrPC or Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) deals with the order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. 
• Section 125(4) CrPC deals with expectation where maintenance is not allowed. 
• A wife loses her right to receive maintenance or interim maintenance from her husband under three specific circumstances: 
  • First Disqualification: If she is living in adultery, she cannot claim maintenance from her husband. 
  • Second Disqualification: If she refuses to live with her husband without any sufficient reason, she forfeits her right to maintenance. 
  • Third Disqualification: If the husband and wife are living separately by mutual consent, the wife cannot claim maintenance. 
  • The disqualification extends to both regular maintenance payments and interim maintenance during legal proceedings. 
  • The burden of proving these disqualifying conditions typically lies on the husband who seeks to deny maintenance. 
  • For the second disqualification to apply, the emphasis is on "refusing" to live with the husband rather than merely "failing" to do so, and the refusal must be without sufficient reason. 
  • The word "sufficient reason" in the provision implies that if the wife has valid grounds for refusing to live with her husband, her right to maintenance remains intact. 

Why does a Restitution of Conjugal Rights Decree Not Automatically Bar Maintenance? 

• The Supreme Court has established that the mere existence of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, even if not complied with by the wife, cannot by itself trigger the disqualification under Section 125(4) CrPC without examining whether the wife had sufficient reasons for refusing to return to the matrimonial home. 
• The findings in a restitution of conjugal rights proceeding are not conclusively binding on maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, as these are independent proceedings where the court must separately evaluate if the wife has sufficient reason for living separately. 
• The maintenance court must independently examine the totality of circumstances, including any cruelty, ill-treatment, or valid grounds that justify the wife's refusal to return to the matrimonial home, regardless of the existence of a restitution decree. 
• Section 125(4) CrPC is on "refusal without sufficient reason" rather than mere non-compliance with a restitution decree, making it necessary to examine the reasons behind the refusal rather than just the fact of non-compliance.