Chastity of a Woman Is a Priceless Possession; Unfounded Allegations Justify Wife’s Right to Live Separately: Orissa High Court

Orissa High Court dismissed a revision petition filed by the husband challenging an order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Baripada. The court upheld the wife’s entitlement to ₹3,000 per month in maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, while rejecting the husband’s claims that the wife had left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and that the amount of maintenance awarded was excessive. The court firmly ruled that baseless allegations of infidelity made by a husband against his wife, without any evidence, provide sufficient justification for the wife to live separately and claim maintenance.

Justice G. Satapathy, delivering the judgment, observed, “When the character of a wife is doubted by her husband without any proof, she has enough reason to live separately from her husband.” The court highlighted the dignity of a woman’s chastity, stating that it is “not only dearest to her but also a priceless possession,” and any baseless aspersions cast upon it amount to character assassination, which is a valid ground for the wife to refuse cohabitation.

The petitioner-husband had filed the revision petition challenging the judgment of the Family Court, which had awarded the wife ₹3,000 per month in maintenance from December 20, 2021. The husband claimed that the wife was not entitled to maintenance as she had voluntarily left the matrimonial home and that the amount granted was excessive given his monthly income of ₹9,000. However, the High Court dismissed both contentions as unsubstantiated and devoid of merit.

The couple was married on May 5, 2021, but their relationship turned sour within a few months. The wife left the matrimonial home on August 28, 2021, and began residing with her parents. She alleged that the husband had raised doubts about her character and subjected her to mental anguish. Subsequently, she filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in the Family Court, Baripada, claiming that she was unable to maintain herself and that the husband, who was working as a skilled laborer with a monthly income of ₹9,000, had sufficient means to provide for her.

The Family Court, after examining the evidence, ruled in favor of the wife, granting her maintenance of ₹3,000 per month. The husband, aggrieved by the order, approached the High Court in revision. During the hearing, the husband contended that the wife had no sufficient cause to live separately and accused her of infidelity. However, he failed to produce any evidence to substantiate his allegations.

The High Court strongly criticized the petitioner for making unfounded allegations against his wife, noting that such accusations strike at the very dignity of the woman. The court stated, “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.” The court further remarked that when a husband casts aspersions on his wife’s character without evidence, it provides her with sufficient cause to live separately under Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C.

Regarding the quantum of maintenance, the High Court found the amount awarded by the Family Court to be reasonable and proportionate to the husband’s financial capacity. Justice Satapathy observed, “The wife is entitled to maintenance commensurate to the standard of living of her husband. If the husband earns ₹9,000 per month, parting with ₹3,000 for the wife’s sustenance is both fair and just.” The court also noted that the wife was financially dependent on the husband and had no independent income to sustain herself.

The court referred to established precedents, including Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316 and Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit, AIR 1999 SC 3348, which underscore the husband’s obligation to maintain his wife and the principle that maintenance should ensure the wife’s standard of living aligns with that of her husband.

Dismissing the revision petition, the High Court concluded, “No ground is made out to interfere with the order of the learned Family Court. The revision petition being unmerited stands dismissed.” The court, however, did not impose any costs on the petitioner.

This judgment reinforces the principle that baseless allegations of infidelity or misconduct cannot bar a wife’s claim to maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and serves as a stern reminder that a husband’s duty to maintain his wife cannot be evaded by making unfounded accusations.

Date of Decision: January 9, 2025