The Orissa High Court has ruled that unfounded accusations of infidelity by a husband justify a wife’s decision to live separately, making her eligible for maintenance. The judgment, delivered by Justice G. Satapathy, upheld the Family Court’s decision to grant ₹3,000 per month in maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
Background
The case involved a marital dispute between a husband and wife, whose marriage was solemnized on May 5, 2021. Discord arose soon after, and the wife began living separately at her parental home on August 28, 2021. Alleging financial incapacity and character accusations by her husband, she approached the Family Court in Baripada, seeking monthly maintenance.
In its decision, the Family Court ordered the husband to pay ₹3,000 per month. The husband challenged the order in a revision petition before the Orissa High Court, claiming the wife left without sufficient cause and that the maintenance awarded was excessive.
Legal Issues
1. Sufficient Cause for Separate Living: Whether the wife had valid reasons to live separately, as per Section 125(4) of CrPC, which disallows maintenance if a wife lives apart without sufficient cause.
2. Quantum of Maintenance: Whether the ₹3,000 monthly maintenance awarded by the Family Court was appropriate given the husband’s income as a skilled laborer.
Court Observations
Justice Satapathy examined the claims and evidence presented in the case. Key observations included:
– Character Assassination as a Valid Ground: The husband accused the wife of an illicit relationship without providing proof. Justice Satapathy remarked, “The chastity of a woman is not only dearest to her but also a priceless possession. When the character of the wife is doubted by her husband without proof, she has enough reason to live separately.” The court held that such baseless allegations erode trust, giving the wife sufficient cause to live apart.
– No Proof of Infidelity: The husband suggested the wife had a relationship with another individual but failed to substantiate the claim. The court noted that such unfounded accusations amounted to character assassination.
– Reasonable Quantum of Maintenance: Addressing the husband’s income, the court found the maintenance amount reasonable. Justice Satapathy highlighted that the husband, earning ₹9,000 per month as a skilled laborer, could afford to pay ₹3,000 to ensure his wife’s dignity and sustenance.
Decision
The High Court dismissed the husband’s revision petition, affirming the Family Court’s ruling. It held that the maintenance amount was commensurate with the husband’s income and the wife’s needs. Justice Satapathy reiterated the legal obligation of a husband to provide for his wife if she cannot sustain herself and is living separately with valid cause.
