Character Assassination by Husband Justifies Wife's Refusal to Co-Habit: Orissa High Court Upholds Maintenance Award to Wife

Orissa High Court dismissed a revision petition filed by a husband challenging the order of the Family Court, Baripada, which directed him to pay ₹3,000/- per month as maintenance to his wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). Justice G. Satapathy upheld the maintenance order, rejecting the husband's arguments of "excessive quantum" and "lack of sufficient cause" for the wife's refusal to live with him.

The court found that baseless accusations of infidelity by the husband constituted sufficient cause for the wife to live separately and warranted maintenance under Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C..

Matrimonial Law – Maintenance – Refusal to Live with Husband – Sufficient Cause Established

The petitioner-husband alleged that his wife was not entitled to maintenance as she had left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause. However, the court observed that the husband had accused the wife of infidelity, citing a relationship with a person named Motilal Mohanta, but failed to provide any proof to substantiate this claim.

The court held: "When the character of the wife is doubted by her husband without any proof, she has enough reason to live separately from her husband. Without producing any proof about the infidelity of his wife, the husband has simply made character assassination of his wife, which itself is a ground for the wife to refuse to live with her husband." [Para 4]

The court further emphasized: "The chastity of a woman is not only dearest to her, but also a priceless possession. Doubting a wife’s chastity without proof justifies her decision to stay apart." [Para 4]

Quantum of Maintenance – ₹3,000/- Upheld Based on Husband’s Income

The husband objected to the quantum of maintenance, claiming that ₹3,000/- per month was excessive given his income of ₹9,000/- per month as a skilled laborer. The court rejected this argument, noting that the amount was reasonable and in line with the standard of living the wife would have enjoyed had she lived with her husband.

The court observed:

"If the monthly income of the husband is ₹9,000/- per month, he can definitely part with ₹3,000/- for the maintenance of his wife who is unable to maintain herself. The Trial Court has not committed any illegality in granting ₹3,000/- per month as maintenance." [Para 5]

Character Assassination – Impact on Wife’s Rights – Maintenance Justified

The court highlighted that the husband's baseless allegations of infidelity constituted a violation of the wife's dignity and were a valid ground for her to live separately. Such accusations undermined the marital relationship and gave the wife sufficient cause to seek maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C..

Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference with Maintenance Order – No Grounds Found

The High Court declined to interfere with the findings of the Family Court, stating that the order was neither illegal nor perverse. The court reiterated that maintenance provisions under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are a measure of social justice intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution of dependent spouses.

The revision petition was dismissed, and the maintenance of ₹3,000/- per month awarded by the Family Court was upheld. The court observed that the amount was reasonable, considering the husband's income and the wife’s inability to maintain herself.

The judgment concluded:

"No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Baripada. The revision petition being unmerited stands dismissed." [Para 6]

Date of Decision: January 9, 2025