MKJ v. LMJ, 2026

The husband filed a criminal revision application challenging the Family Court’s order granting maintenance to the wife.

The Family Court had directed the husband, who was employed as a gangman in the Railways, to pay maintenance to the wife.

The maintenance awarded was:

• Rs. 500 per month from January 14, 2017 to December 31, 2020,

• Rs. 6000 per month till August 31, 2024, and

• Rs. 7000 per month from September 2024 onwards.

The husband contended that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home without sufficient reason.

He argued that under Section 125(4) CrPC, a wife refusing to live with her husband without sufficient cause is not entitled to maintenance.

The wife alleged ill-treatment and circumstances making it impossible for her to live with dignity in the matrimonial home.

The Court examined the conduct of the husband and noted that:

• he failed to contest the divorce proceedings filed by the wife,

• he did not make any arrangements for her maintenance, and

• his cross-examination reflected complete indifference towards the wife’s condition and livelihood.

The Court further noted that there was no evidence showing that the wife was independently earning.

The Bombay High Court dismissed the husband’s revision application and upheld the maintenance awarded by the Family Court.

Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke observed that torture or ill-treatment in the husband’s house constitutes sufficient reason for a wife to refuse to live with her husband.

The Court further held that where a wife cannot reasonably hope to live with dignity in her matrimonial home, she is justified in living separately and claiming maintenance.

The Bench emphasized that an offer by the husband to maintain the wife must be bona fide and not merely intended to escape maintenance liability.

The Court clarified that the burden initially lies upon the husband to prove that the wife refused to live with him.

Once such refusal is shown, the burden shifts to the wife to establish sufficient reasons for living separately.

The Court explained that the object of Section 125 CrPC is to provide a summary remedy preventing destitution and vagrancy.

It was observed that jurisdiction under Section 125 is preventive and social-welfare oriented rather than punitive.

The Bench further clarified the distinction between:

• “refusal” to maintain, and

• “neglect” to maintain.

The Court held that neglect or refusal can be inferred from conduct and need not always be express.

In the present case, the Court found that the husband:

• failed to care for the wife,

• failed to provide maintenance, and

• showed indifference towards her welfare.

The High Court concluded that the maintenance awarded by the Family Court was just, reasonable, and legally sustainable.

Accordingly, the revision application was dismissed.

The judgment reinforces the welfare-oriented nature of Section 125 CrPC.

The Bombay High Court adopted a socially sensitive interpretation of maintenance law by recognizing the importance of dignity within matrimonial relationships.

The ruling clarifies that physical separation alone does not disentitle a wife from claiming maintenance if sufficient reasons exist.

The Court emphasized that matrimonial dignity and mental well-being are crucial considerations while assessing maintenance claims.

By recognizing implied neglect through conduct, the judgment broadens protection available to economically vulnerable spouses.

The ruling also discourages husbands from making superficial offers of cohabitation merely to avoid maintenance obligations.

The judgment contributes significantly to jurisprudence relating to:

• maintenance rights,

• matrimonial cruelty,

• dignity of women,

• social justice, and

• welfare-based interpretation of criminal procedure law.

The decision strengthens the preventive and humanitarian purpose underlying maintenance provisions in Indian law.