In a significant and precedent-setting ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a woman who voluntarily leaves her matrimonial home without a reasonable, lawful, and well-substantiated cause cannot claim maintenance from her husband. The court underlined that the mere existence of a marital relationship does not automatically confer a right to maintenance; rather, the conduct of the parties, particularly the reasons for living separately, must be carefully examined.
The judgment arose from a case in which the wife had left her husband’s home just four days after the marriage. She alleged that she had been subjected to dowry-related harassment, as well as mental and physical cruelty, claiming that her husband and in-laws demanded a car and ₹10 lakh. On the basis of these allegations, she later approached the court seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
However, the family court in Bilaspur dismissed her plea for maintenance. In its reasoning, the family court noted that the husband had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, demonstrating his willingness to resume cohabitation and continue the marital relationship. The court found this to be a relevant factor, suggesting that the husband was not neglecting or refusing to maintain his wife.
When the matter reached the High Court, the bench upheld the family court’s decision. It observed that the wife had failed to produce sufficient and credible evidence to substantiate her claims of dowry harassment or cruelty. The court concluded that, in the absence of convincing proof, there was no justifiable reason for her to have left the matrimonial home so abruptly or to continue living separately.
The High Court further clarified that Section 125 of the CrPC expressly bars the grant of maintenance in cases where a wife lives apart from her husband without adequate cause. The bench emphasised that if a wife chooses to leave the matrimonial home without a reasonable explanation and refuses to return despite lawful efforts by the husband to restore the marital relationship, she cannot later invoke maintenance provisions as a matter of right.
Legal experts have observed that the ruling reinforces the core objective of maintenance laws, which is to protect spouses who are genuinely abandoned, neglected, or subjected to cruelty. At the same time, the judgment makes it clear that such provisions are not intended to be misused in situations where separation is voluntary and lacks legal justification. The decision, therefore, places renewed emphasis on balancing statutory protection with fairness and accountability in marital disputes.
