The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) has quashed and set aside a Family Court order that had granted a decree of restitution of conjugal rights in favor of a wife and directed the husband to pay maintenance. The High Court observed that the wife had filed a criminal complaint against the husband and his family members 11 months after leaving the matrimonial home merely to “pressurize” them, and that she had suppressed material facts regarding her income.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice M.S. Jawalkar and Justice M.W. Chandwani, partly allowed the appeals filed by the husband against the common judgment and order dated August 30, 2024, passed by the Family Court, Yavatmal. While the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was set aside, the matter regarding maintenance was remanded back to the Family Court for fresh consideration.
Background of the Case
The Appellant (husband) and the Respondent (wife) were married on May 24, 2021, in Yavatmal according to Hindu rites and customs. The wife left the matrimonial home on August 16, 2021, ostensibly to pursue her Master of Engineering examination.
Subsequently, the wife filed three petitions before the Family Court:
- Petition No. A-126/2022 for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
- Petition No. C-4/2022 for maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
- Petition No. E-74/2022 for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Additionally, on July 12, 2022—approximately 11 months after leaving the matrimonial home—the wife lodged an FIR (Crime No. 187/2022) under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging cruelty.
The Family Court, by its order dated August 30, 2024, allowed all petitions filed by the wife, directing her to resume cohabitation and ordering the husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 20,000 per month in each maintenance petition. The husband challenged this common order in the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The Appellant-Husband’s Submissions: The husband contended that the wife was career-minded and left the matrimonial house on her own accord. He argued that she suppressed the fact that she was running a private teaching institute named “Joy Engineering Classes,” which generated substantial income. He also alleged that she concealed a 40% physical disability.
The husband further argued that the wife filed multiple proceedings and a false criminal complaint solely to harass him and his family. He relied on WhatsApp messages sent by the wife after leaving the home, in which she expressed regrets for her behavior, to show that there was no cruelty on his part.
The Respondent-Wife’s Submissions: The wife, appearing in person, submitted that she left the house for her exams and intended to return, but the husband and his family refused to take her back. She denied running any coaching classes or having a disability that affected marital obligations.
She alleged that she was harassed by the husband’s grandmother. Regarding maintenance, she argued that the husband, working as a Professor, earned between Rs. 1 to 1.5 lakhs per month, although he admitted to earning Rs. 5 lakhs per year in cross-examination.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
The High Court scrutinized the timeline of events and the evidence on record. The Court noted that the wife left the matrimonial house on August 16, 2021, for her education. However, there was “no pleading to that effect as to what steps the wife has taken for resuming cohabitation” after her exams were over.
On Restitution of Conjugal Rights and Cruelty: The Bench observed that the FIR alleging cruelty was lodged after a gap of 11 months. The Court examined the WhatsApp messages sent by the wife during the separation, noting:
“After going through the said WhatsApp messages, it appears that the wife had expressed regrets for the situation & for her behaviour… From all these messages, one fact is clear that she was not harassed by any of the family members.”
The Court found that the allegations in the FIR appeared to be an “afterthought,” noting the wife’s admission in cross-examination that “if the husband would have shown willingness to cohabit with the wife, there was no reason to lodge a criminal complaint.”
Citing the judgment in Anil Yashwant Karande vs. Mangal Anil Karande, the Court reiterated that filing a false criminal complaint constitutes matrimonial cruelty. The Bench stated:
“Moreover, her admission that she could not have filed a criminal complaint if the husband would have consented for cohabitation clearly goes to show that the FIR was lodged simply to pressurize the husband and his family members.”
The Court held that the Family Court failed to appreciate that the wife had withdrawn from the society of the husband without reasonable excuse after her exams concluded.
On Maintenance and Suppression of Income: Regarding the maintenance award, the High Court found that the Family Court had not properly appreciated the evidence suggesting the wife had independent income. The husband had produced an advertisement for “Joy Engineering Classes” featuring a mobile number that the wife admitted belonged to her (one of her two SIM cards).
The Court observed:
“The learned Judge, Family Court has not given any consideration to this piece of evidence and also not considered that the wife was having an account in the State Bank of India. She has not mentioned it in her affidavit of assets and liabilities.”
The Bench concluded that the grant of Rs. 20,000 per month was based on “insufficient evidence” due to the suppression of financial details.
Decision
The High Court passed the following order:
- Restitution of Conjugal Rights: The judgment and order of the Family Court allowing the wife’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights (Petition No. A-126/2022) was quashed and set aside.
- Maintenance: The orders granting maintenance in Petition No. C-4/2022 and Petition No. E-74/2022 were quashed and set aside.
- Remand: The maintenance matters were remitted back to the Family Court, Yavatmal, for fresh consideration.
- Fresh Affidavits: Both parties were directed to file fresh affidavits of assets and liabilities. The Court clarified that payments already made towards maintenance are not recoverable from the wife.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Sahil Sanjay Rathod vs. Swati Sahil Rathod
- Case Numbers: Family Court Appeal No. 57/2024, Family Court Appeal No. 58/2024, Criminal Revision Application (Revn) No. 194/2024
- Coram: Justice M.S. Jawalkar and Justice M.W. Chandwani
