Husband can’t use ‘return to home’ decree as an excuse to stop paying maintenance to wife: Karnataka High Court

Section 125 (4) mandates that no wife shall be entitled to receive maintenance if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.

During the pendency of the hearing, the high court directed the husband, who works in the postal department, to pay an interim maintenance of Rs 5,000 per month to the wife. In accordance with the interim order, the husband filed a memo regarding certain payments.

In her plea, the woman alleged harassment at her matrimonial home, including ill-treatment by her mother-in-law, within a year of marriage. She also said her husband, a Central government employee earning around Rs 50,000–Rs 60,000 per month, owned agricultural land and earned around 2 lakh to 4 lakh per year from farming.

The husband opposed the plea, stating he was willing to take her back and resume marital life; therefore, no maintenance was required, as she had not complied with the family court’s restitution order.

The Karnataka High Court, however, noted that the wife had raised allegations of harassment and had expressed willingness to return, subject to assurances of safety. It also observed that the husband had not taken steps to enforce the restitution decree.

“The conduct of the respondent in not executing the decree assumes significance. If the respondent was genuinely interested in resuming cohabitation, he ought to have taken steps to enforce the decree. His failure to do so indicates that the decree was used merely as a defence to avoid maintenance,” the bench said in the order.

“Right to maintenance is a statutory right and cannot be defeated on technical grounds. The husband’s obligation to maintain his wife and children is a continuing one… In the present case, the petitioner No. 1 (wife) has demonstrated sufficient grounds for living separately. The finding of the family court that she deserted the respondent is perverse and not supported by a proper appreciation of evidence,” said the bench.

Allowing the petition, the bench modified the family court order and directed the husband to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs 10,000 to the wife, while continuing the same payment to the children.