The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has ruled that a wife who resides separately from her husband without sufficient reason is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke observed that the foundation of a maintenance order is the “neglect or refusal” by the husband, and if a wife withdraws from her husband’s company voluntarily—such as refusing to move to his native village after his retirement—she cannot claim maintenance.
The court made these observations while dismissing a revision application filed by a woman challenging a Family Court order that rejected her claim for maintenance against her retired husband.
Background of the Case
The applicant (wife) and the non-applicant (husband) were married on May 15, 1985. The husband worked as a Class-IV employee in the Zilla Parishad and retired in June 2018. The wife alleged that throughout the marriage, the husband subjected her to ill-treatment, was addicted to liquor, and maintained extra-marital affairs. She further claimed that after retirement, he moved in with another lady and asked the wife to vacate their official residential quarter, thereby neglecting and refusing to maintain her.
The husband opposed the application, stating that he provided for his family for 34 years and educated their children. He contended that after his retirement, he moved to his native village, Barad Khopada, to do labour work, but the wife refused to leave the urban life. He argued that she voluntarily withdrew from his company and continued to reside in the government quarter illegally.
Arguments of the Parties
The wife’s counsel argued that the husband had received ₹25,00,000 in retirement benefits and earned a monthly pension of ₹20,000, yet failed to support his wife. Additionally, a procedural objection was raised, claiming the Family Court erred by allowing evidence via affidavit, which they argued was contrary to the procedure prescribed under the CrPC.
The husband’s counsel submitted that the wife admitted to living with him until his retirement and that there were no prior complaints of ill-treatment. They further argued that under Section 10(3) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the court is empowered to lay down its own procedure to arrive at the truth, justifying the use of affidavits.
Court’s Analysis
On Voluntary Separation and Maintenance: Justice Phalke emphasized that under Section 125(4) of the CrPC, a wife is not entitled to an allowance if she refuses to live with her husband without any sufficient reason. The court noted:
“The wife who without sufficient reasons refuses to live with her husband is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.”
The court found that the evidence showed the couple lived together until the husband’s retirement. The wife admitted she stayed with him throughout his service, and there was no evidence of continuous ill-treatment or previous police complaints. The court observed:
“After retirement he went to his native place and the applicant has not joined him which is sufficient to infer that as she was not willing to stay at his native place… therefore, she withdrawn herself from the company of the present non-applicant.”
Regarding the allegations of illicit relations, the court stated that “except bare words there is absolutely no evidence” to substantiate that the husband was leading an adulterous life.
On Procedural Legality: Addressing the procedural challenge, the High Court held that the Family Courts Act is a special legislation intended to simplify procedures. It ruled that Section 10(3) and Section 20 of the Act give the Family Court the discretion to devise its own procedure, which overrides the rigours of the CrPC.
“A Family Court is entitled to lay down its own procedure, as warranted by facts/circumstances of a given case and it is not bound by the procedural rigours of CPC 1908.”
The Decision
The High Court concluded that since the wife had voluntarily stayed away from the husband because she did not want to move to a village, there was no “refusal or neglect” on the part of the husband.
“In the absence of evidence of refusal and neglect the non-applicant is not liable to pay maintenance.”
The Revision Application was accordingly dismissed.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Sau. Ratnaprabha Prakash Jawade vs. Prakash Dhyanobaji Jawade
- Case No.: Criminal Revision Application No. 14 of 2024
- Bench: Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke
- Date: March 23, 2026
