Bilaspur, India: In a significant ruling on matrimonial law, the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a wife who lives separately from her husband without a valid and justifiable reason is not entitled to receive maintenance. The court upheld an earlier order of the Family Court in Bilaspur denying monthly maintenance to the wife.
The judgment was delivered by a bench headed by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha while hearing a petition filed by the wife of Praveen Kumar Vedula, a resident of Bilaspur. The petitioner had challenged the Family Court’s decision, which had refused to grant her maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The High Court observed that there was no illegality or procedural flaw in the Family Court’s order warranting interference. It emphasized that Section 125(4) of the CrPC clearly states that a wife is not entitled to maintenance if she refuses to live with her husband without sufficient cause.
The court noted that the husband had also filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, expressing his willingness to resume marital life. In such circumstances, the court held that the wife could not claim maintenance while choosing to live separately without reasonable justification.
The wife had alleged dowry harassment, claiming that just four days after marriage, she was asked to bring a car and ₹10 lakh in cash, and that she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty. She had also lodged a police complaint in this regard. However, after examining the evidence and arguments from both sides, the Family Court concluded that her separate residence was not supported by sufficient legal grounds.
Affirming this conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the husband and dismissed the wife’s petition, stating that the Family Court’s decision was legally sound and required no reconsideration.
Legal experts believe the ruling reinforces the principle that maintenance claims must be supported not only by marital status but also by the conduct of the parties involved. The judgment is expected to serve as an important precedent in future matrimonial disputes involving maintenance claims.
The husband was represented by advocates Nelson Panna and Ashutosh Mishra.