The Supreme Court has recently ruled that a woman can still receive maintenance from her husband, even if she does not comply with a court order to live with him, provided she has valid reasons for refusing to do so. This important ruling, which settled a long-standing legal debate, highlighted the need to consider each case individually and based on the facts presented.

Case background: A husband's demand for cohabitation

An estranged couple from Jharkhand was involved in a legal dispute that reached the Supreme Court. The couple had married on May 1, 2014, but separated in August 2015 when the wife left her husband's house. The husband asked a family court in Ranchi to make his wife return home by filing a request for the "restitution of conjugal rights" (which means a legal order for the wife to return and live with him). He claimed his wife had left their home on August 21, 2015, and had not returned, despite his efforts to get her back.

In response, the wife told the court that her husband had abused her, both mentally and physically. She said that he demanded Rs. 5 lakh as dowry to buy a car and that his affairs with other women made their marriage worse. She also shared that she had a miscarriage in 2015, and during her recovery, her husband did not visit her.

The wife said that she would only come back to the house if certain conditions were met: she should be allowed to use the washroom (which had been restricted before) and should be able to cook food using a modern gas stove instead of using wood and coal.

Court's decision in the restitution of conjugal rights case

In March 2022, the family court in Ranchi gave its ruling, ordering that the wife return to her husband’s house under a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Even with this decree, the wife chose not to comply and instead sought maintenance from her husband through the family court.

The family court decided that the husband must pay the wife Rs 10,000 per month as maintenance. The husband, dissatisfied with this ruling, appealed to the Jharkhand High Court, where the court found that the wife had not returned to the marital home even though the court had ordered her to do so. The High Court ruled that since she had not followed the decree, she would not be entitled to maintenance.

Supreme Court's intervention and final ruling

The wife was upset with the High Court's decision and decided to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court looked at the case carefully and decided that the reasons the wife gave for not returning to her husband's home were reasonable. The court said these reasons should be considered. The judges, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, explained that just because the wife refused to live with her husband, it didn't automatically mean she should be denied maintenance (financial support).

The bench observed, "There can be no hard and fast rule in this regard, and it must invariably depend on the distinctive facts and circumstances obtaining in each particular case." It also explained that the wife’s noncompliance with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights would not be enough, by itself, to deny her maintenance.

Highlighting Ill-Treatment and upholding wife's right to maintenance

The Supreme Court further explained that in this case, there were clear indications of ill-treatment towards the wife. She had been subjected to physical and mental harassment, including being denied basic rights such as using the toilet and cooking food properly. These factors were considered by the court when making its decision.

The bench observed, "The fact that she was not allowed to use the toilet in the house or avail herself of proper facilities to cook food in the matrimonial home, facts that were accepted in the restitution proceedings, are further indications of her ill-treatment."

What does this ruling mean?

The Supreme Court's decision highlights that when there are marital problems and someone asks for financial support, the specific details of the situation need to be taken into account. Just because a court orders a husband to bring his wife back does not automatically mean that she should lose her right to financial support if she has good reasons for not living with him.

In this case, the court decided in favour of the wife and agreed with the family court's decision. The family court had ordered the husband to pay her Rs 10,000 every month starting from August 3, 2019, which is when she first asked for financial support. The Supreme Court also ordered that the unpaid maintenance amount (arrears) should be paid in three equal parts.

The Supreme Court's decision answers an important legal question: a woman should not lose her right to financial support just because she doesn't follow a court order to live with her husband, especially if she has good reasons not to return home. The court said that issues like mental and physical abuse, mistreatment, and other personal problems should be taken seriously when deciding if she should get financial support.

This case reminds everyone that judges must always make fair and sensitive decisions that focus on the well-being of the people involved.