Wife’s Right to Maintenance Cannot Be Denied Due to Non-Compliance with Restitution Decree: Orissa High Court

Financial Obligations Towards Wife and Children Cannot Be Avoided Under the Guise of Marital Disputes - In a crucial judgment delivered on March 4, 2025, the Orissa High Court dismissed a husband's plea challenging a Family Court order directing him to pay maintenance to his estranged wife and two minor children. The Court, in Ashok Kumar Patra v. Rajani Pattanaik, upheld the grant of ₹5,000 per month to the wife and ₹2,000 each to the children, ruling that "the husband cannot escape his financial responsibilities under Section 125 CrPC by claiming that his wife refused to return despite a decree for restitution of conjugal rights."

The Court rejected the argument that the wife’s refusal to resume cohabitation disentitled her from receiving maintenance, emphasizing that "even if a husband secures a restitution decree, the wife’s right to maintenance does not automatically cease unless it is proven that she is living separately without sufficient cause."

"Restitution of Conjugal Rights Decree Does Not Bar Maintenance Claim" – Court Dismisses Husband’s Defense

The husband contended that his wife had voluntarily deserted him and refused to return despite a court decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He argued that "since the wife deliberately stayed away from the matrimonial home, she was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC."

Rejecting this argument, the Court ruled that "merely obtaining a restitution decree does not, by itself, absolve the husband from his duty to provide maintenance. It must be established that the wife is staying away without any valid reason, and in the present case, the evidence does not support such a claim."

Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rina Kumari v. Dinesh Kumar Mahato, the Court reiterated that "a wife’s refusal to return to her husband despite a restitution decree does not automatically disqualify her from claiming maintenance. Each case must be assessed based on its unique facts, and if the wife has valid reasons for living separately, she remains entitled to financial support."

"Financial Hardships Do Not Justify Denying Basic Maintenance" – Court Finds Husband’s Income Sufficient

The husband argued that his income was insufficient to pay the ordered maintenance, claiming that he earned only ₹21,167 per month as a pensioner and had additional financial liabilities, including a bank loan EMI of ₹5,953 and medical expenses for his dependent mother.

The Court found this contention unconvincing, ruling that "financial obligations towards other dependents or loan repayments cannot override the primary duty of a husband to provide for his wife and children." It noted that the husband was previously earning more through contractual jobs and was still capable of earning additional income.

"The petitioner-husband, being a retired BSF personnel, is in a position to secure further employment, and even after deductions for his liabilities, he has sufficient means to meet his obligations towards his wife and children," the Court observed.

"Maintenance to Be Paid from the Date of Application" – Court Upholds Family Court’s Direction

The husband further challenged the Family Court’s order directing him to pay maintenance from the date of the application instead of the date of the order. He argued that maintenance should be granted only from the date of the Family Court’s judgment.

Rejecting this contention, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha, which laid down that "maintenance should ordinarily be granted from the date of application, as delays in legal proceedings should not deprive the dependent spouse and children of financial support."

The Court ruled that "considering the delay in disposal of maintenance applications, awarding maintenance from the date of application is fair and just. The wife and children cannot be left to suffer due to procedural delays in court proceedings."

Maintenance Upheld, Husband Directed to Comply Immediately

Dismissing the husband’s plea, the Orissa High Court affirmed the Family Court’s order, directing him to continue paying ₹5,000 per month to the wife and ₹2,000 per month to each child. The Court warned that failure to comply would result in coercive recovery proceedings, including attachment of assets.

The Orissa High Court has reaffirmed that a husband cannot evade his financial responsibilities towards his wife and children by citing marital disputes or financial constraints. The ruling clarifies that "a decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not automatically disentitle a wife from maintenance, and the husband must demonstrate that she is living separately without sufficient cause to deny her financial support."

By upholding the wife and children’s right to maintenance despite the husband’s claims of economic hardship, the Court has reinforced the principle that a spouse’s primary obligation towards their dependents cannot be ignored, even in cases of marital discord.

Date of decision: 04/03/2025