LexRINA KUMARI @ RINA DEVI @ REENA versus DINESH KUMAR MAHTO @ DINESH KUMAR MAHATO AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 462 : 2025 INSC 55 Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato and another (Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2025) 10 January 2025 [Sanjiv Khanna, CJI and Sanjay Kumar,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Will a husband, who secures a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, stand absolved of paying maintenance to his wife by virtue of Section 125(4), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if his wife refuses to abide by the said decree and return to the matrimonial home. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125(4) – Disqualification under, when not attracted – Wife’s right to maintenance u/s.125, CrPC – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.9 – Decree for restitution of conjugal rights obtained by respondent No.1-husband – Non-compliance therewith by the appellant-wife – If would be sufficient to attract the disqualification u/s.125(4): Held: No – Mere passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights at the husband’s behest and non-compliance therewith by the wife would not, by itself, be sufficient to attract the disqualification u/s.125(4) or be determinative straightaway of her right to maintenance – It would depend on the facts of each case to be decided, on the evidence available, whether the wife still had valid and sufficient reason to refuse to live with her husband, despite such a decree – Restitution decree was passed on 23.04.2022 – Admittedly, there was no attempt made at reconciliation after 2017 – However, having secured the restitution decree, respondent No.1 did nothing – He neither sought execution of the decree or a decree of divorce – The stalemate created by Respondent No.1 reflects his lack of bonafides and demonstrates his attempt to disown all responsibility towards his wife – His conduct in completely ignoring the appellant after she suffered the miscarriage of their child added to her suffering due to the ill-treatment in her matrimonial home – Respondent No.1’s admission that he did not bear the expenditure * Author [2025] 1 S.C.R. 463 Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato and Anr. for her treatment and her unrebutted assertion that he did not take her to the hospital or even come from Ranchi to see her were clear indicia of the pain and mental cruelty meted out to her – Therefore, she had just cause to not return to her matrimonial home, despite the restitution decree – Appellant had more than sufficient reason to stay away from the society of Respondent No.1 – Hence, her refusal to live with him, notwithstanding the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights cannot be held against her – The disqualification u/s.125(4), CrPC was thus, not attracted – High Court erred in applying the same holding that the appellant was not entitled to the maintenance granted to her by the Family Court – Impugned judgment set aside – Order of the Family Court restored. [Paras 29, 35, 37-39] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Maintenance proceedings – Nature: Held: Even if non-compliance with an order for payment of maintenance entails penal consequences, like other decrees of a Civil Court, such proceedings would not qualify as or become criminal proceedings – Nomenclature of maintenance proceedings initiated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, as those provisions find place therein, cannot be held to be conclusive as to the nature of such proceedings. [Para 30] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Maintenance – Statutory scheme – Discussed. [Paras 8, 9] Words and Phrases – Mental cruelty; “Judgments in rem”; “Judgments in personam” – Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.40-43 – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – ss.34-37 – Discussed. [Paras 32, 33, 36] Case Law Cited Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, 2007 INSC 1190 : [2007] 12 SCR 577 : (2008) 2 SCC 316; Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and Others, 2014 INSC 490 : [2014] 8 SCR 858 : (2015) 6 SCC 353; Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse and Another, 2013 INSC 703 : [2013] 10 SCR 259 : (2014) 1 SCC 188; Rajnesh v. Neha and Another 2020 INSC 631 : [2020] 13 SCR 1093 : (2021) 2 SCC 324; Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, 2015 INSC 283 : [2015] 4 SCR 137 : (2015) 5 SCC 705; Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat and Another [1996] Supp. 2 SCR 45 : (1996) 4 SCC 479; Amrita 464 [2025] 1 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Singh v. Ratan Singh and Another (2018) 17 SCC 737; Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi, 2003 INSC 596 : [2003] Sup
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.