Lokesh vs Smt. Annapurna
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
1
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18129
CRR No.1229/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1229 of 2022
LOKESH
Versus
SMT. ANNAPURNA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nilesh Dave - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Neelesh Agrawal –Advocate for the respondents.
Reserved on : 02/07/2026
Post on : 08/07/2026
______________________________________________________
ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision has been preferred under Section
19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, read with the relevant
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/8/2026
5:24:23 PM
2
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18129
CRR No.1229/2022
legality, propriety, and correctness of the final order dated
08/03/2022 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Ratlam,
District Ratlam, M.P., in MJCR No. 48/16.
2. By the aforesaid impugned order, the learned Family Court
allowed the application for maintenance filed by the non-applicants
under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The applicant/husband
(revisionist) has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000/-
per month to non-applicant No. 1 (wife) and Rs. 5,000/- per month
each to non-applicant No. 2 and non-applicant No. 3 (children),
totaling Rs. 20,000/- per month.
3. The applicant/husband has approached this Court through
criminal revision praying that the impugned order dated 08/03/2022
be set aside on the grounds of perversity and non-appreciation of
material facts, particularly the statutory bar under Section 125(4) of
the Cr.P.C.
FACTS IN BRIEF
4. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this revision are
that the applicant and non-applicant No. 1 are legally wedded
husband and wife, and non-applicant No. 2 and non-applicant No. 3
are their children born out of the said wedlock.
5. Disputes arose between the parties, leading non-applicant No.
1 to reside separately with her parents. She subsequently filed an
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/8/2026
5:24:23 PM
3
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18129
CRR No.1229/2022
application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Ratlam, seeking maintenance for
herself and the two minor children.
6. The applicant/husband pleaded before the lower court that
non-applicant No. 1 voluntarily left to live at her parents' home and
did not inform him of the birth of non-applicant No. 3. The
applicant/husband bore the hospital expenses, yet non-applicant No.
1 returned to her parents' house with the child without informing the
applicant’s family.
7. The record indicates that on 28/05/2013, the revisionist
submitted an application before the Women's Counseling Center.
Upon the condition that a concrete wall be built between house
numbers 139 and 140 to separate the kitchen, non-applicant No. 1
returned, but resumed quarrels shortly thereafter.
8. It is an admitted fact on record that non-applicant No. 1 had
registered a case under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. against the
revisionist and his family members (Crime No. 38/13 at P.S. Mahila
Thana Ratlam). The family members were discharged/acquitted on
26/09/2016 by the High Court, and the revisionist was acquitted by
the trial court vide order dated 10/08/2019.
CONTENTIONS OF THE REVISIONIST
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/8/2026
5:24:23 PM
4
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18129
CRR No.1229/2022
9. The revisionist contends that the impugned order is contrary to
law and facts on record, and that the learned Family Court decided
the maintenance solely on unwarranted inferences and
presumptions.
10. It is vehemently argued that the learned Family Court
committed a grave error in not considering the mandatory
provisions of Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C., which specifically
stipulates that a wife living separately without any sufficient cause
or reason is not entitled to maintenance.
11. The revisionist further submits that non-applicant No. 1 is
running a beauty parlor and earns an independent income. This fact
was deliberately hidden by her but was admitted by her brother,
Shivshakti, during his statement, which the trial court failed to
consider.
12. The revisionist asserts that his conduct was natural as he
produced his pay slips demonstrating expenses regarding a home
loan and the medical treatment of his old-aged parents. It is
contended that the trial court failed to appreciate these liabilities
while assessing the quantum of maintenance.
13. It is also urged that there is no cogent and credible evidence
produced by the wife to justify her separate living, especially
considering that the revisionist has already been acquitted of the
charges under Section 498-A of the I.P.C.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/8/2026
5:24:23 PM
5
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18129
CRR No.1229/2022
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
14. Per contra , non-applicant No. 1 has strongly opposed the
revision petition, supporting the impugned order and praying for the
dismissal of the present revision.
15. It is submitted by the non-applicant that at the time of
marriage, her mother gave dowry and gifts as per her status, which
are still in the possession of the revisionist. She alleged that shortly
after marriage, the revisionist and his family began quarreling over
trivial matters and tortured her physically and mentally for dowry.
16. Non-applicant No. 1 further contended that when she became
pregnant again, the cruelty escalated, and they demanded three lakh
rupees. She alleged that on 19.10.2013, she and her child were
thrown out of the matrimonial house, forcing her to lodge the FIR at
the Women's Police Station, Ratlam.
17. She submitted that since 19.10.2013, the revisionist has made
no arrangements to bring her back or provide maintenance,
compelling her to live with her widowed mother and remain
completely dependent on her.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
18. At the very outset, it is imperative to delineate the scope and
ambit of the revisional jurisdiction exercised by this Court under
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/8/2026
5:24:23 PM
6
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18129
CRR No.1229/2022
Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, read with the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. The jurisdiction vested in this Court is
inherently supervisory in nature and is distinct from the regular
appellate jurisdiction.
19. A revisional court does not function as a regular court of
appeal. Consequently, a routine re-appreciation or re-evaluation of
evidence is generally impermissible unless it is demonstrably
required to prevent a gross miscarriage of justice. The subjective
satisfaction of the trial court based on evidence cannot be lightly
interfered with. However, interference in revisional jurisdiction is
strictly warranted in cases where the impugned order suffers from a
patent jurisdictional error, material irregularity, manifest error
apparent on the face of the record, or where the findings recorded
by the subordinate court are entirely perverse and legally
unsustainable.
20. Guided by the specific directions and the factual matrix
supplied on record, this Court is called upon to determine a
singular, definitive issue: whether the reasoning adopted by the
learned Family Court that a lack of harmony or the husband paying
more attention to other family members constitutes a justifiable
ground for the wife to live separately is legally sustainable in view
of the statutory bar encapsulated under Section 125(4) of the
Cr.P.C.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/8/2026
5:24:23 PM
7
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18129
CRR No.1229/2022
21. To adjudicate this issue, it is necessary to examine the
specific reasoning adopted by the learned Family Court. The trial
court, in its endeavor to justify the separate living of non-applicant
No. 1, recorded its findings in paragraphs 31 and 32 of the
impugned judgment.
22. The learned Family Court held as follows:-
“31- 17
अनावेदक ने अऩने प्रतिऩयीऺण के ऩैया भें मह फिामा है
कक वितभान भें मकद आवेकदका फच्चों सकहि अनावेदक के साथ
,
यहना बी चाहे िो बी वह उन्हें साथ भें यखने के तरए िैमाय नहीं है
जहाीं िक बफना ककसी उतचि आधाय के आवेकदका का ऩृथक यहना
,
अनावेदक की ओय से कहा जा यहा है इस सींफींध भें स्वमीं
. . 1
अनावेदक रोकेश अना सा ने अऩने भुख्म ऩयीऺण भें ही
.
फिामा है कक बववाह के सभम उसका सींमुक्त ऩरयवाय था मकद
अनावेदक के तरए अनावेदक की भाीं मा बाबी कबी कबी किकपन
फना दे िो आवेकदका नायाज हो जािी थी औय कहिी थी कक
प्रत्मेक कामों के तरए ऩरयवाय के रोगों से क्मों ऩूछिे हो। मह बी
फिामा है कक आवेकदका की जजद के कायण उसने आवेकदका को
अऩनी छोिी दादी के खारी भकान भें यहने के तरए आवेकदका की
,
व्मवस्था कय दी थी वहाीं चाय कदन यहने के उऩयाींि आवेकदका
बफना फिामे चरी गमी थी औय धभकी देिी थी कक झूठे केस भें
, , 2013 -
पसा देगी िफ अनावेदक ने भई भें ऩुतरस को आवेदन ऩत्र
,
कदमा था आवेकदका की भाीं ने िफ कहा था कक दोनों भकानों के
भध्म दीवाय फनाकय अरग ककतचन फना दो िबी आवेकदका
.
आमेगी इसके फाद दीवाय फनाकय ककतचन अरग कय कदमा गमा
, -
था रेककन उसके फाद बी आवेकदका ने अनावेदक के भािा बऩिा
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/8/2026
5:24:23 PM
8
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18129
CRR No.1229/2022
.
के साथ यहने से इींकाय कय कदमा था उसका कहना था कक अऩने
, .
घय के रोगों से कोई सींफींध भि यखो मह बी उल्रेखनीम है कक
अनावेदक ने अऩने प्रतिऩयीऺण भें मह बी फिामा है कक उसे नहीं
भारूभ कक उसका ऩहरा ऩुत्र ककस स्कूर भें ऩढ़िा है औय न ही
कबी उसने स्कूर भें जाकय इस सींफींध भें जानकायी री कक उसके
,
ऩुत्र की ऩढ़ाई का खचत औय स्कूर पीस ककिनी है इसी ियह
दूसये
ऩुत्र के फाये भें बी कथन ककमा है।
32-
अनावेदक ने अऩने प्रतिऩयीऺण भें मह बी फिामा है कक मकद
वितभान भें आवेकदका अऩने फच्चों सकहि उसके साथ यहना बी
,
चाहे िो बी वह साथ भें यखने के तरए ित्ऩय नहीं है अनावेदक
द्वाया अऩनी दोनों ऩुत्र सींिानों के सींफींध भें बी कबी कोई जानकायी
नहीं री गमी है कक वह ककस स्कूर भें ककस प्रकाय अध्ममनयि
,
हैं जहाीं िक आवेकदका का अनावेदक से ऩृथक होकय यहने का प्रश्न
है िो अतबरेख ऩय उऩरब्ध साक्ष्म से मह ऩामा जा यहा है कक
आवेकदका िथा अनावेदक के ऩरयवाय के अन्म सदस्मों के भध्म
,
साभींजस्म ठीक नहीं था अनावेदक आवेकदका की अऩेऺा अऩने
,
ऩरयवाय के अन्म सदस्मों की ओय अतधक ध्मान दे यहा था
इसतरए आवेकदका इन ऩमातप्त कायणों से अनावेदक से ऩृथक यह
-
यही है एवीं आवेदकगण अनावेदक से बयण ऩोषण की यातश प्राप्त
. ' '
कय ऩाने के अतधकायी हैं। इस ियह बवचायणीम क ए का
बफींदु
तनयाकयण आवेदकगण के कहि भें एवीं अनावेदक के बवरूद्ध ककमा
“
जािा है।
23. A careful perusal of the aforementioned paragraphs reveals
that the sole reason ascribed by the learned trial court for non-
applicant No. 1 living separately is that there was no harmony
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/8/2026
5:24:23 PM
9
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18129
CRR No.1229/2022
between her and the other members of the applicant's family, and
that the applicant was paying more attention to his family members
than to her.
24. This reasoning adopted by the learned trial court is patently
erroneous and suffers from severe perversity. In the realm of
matrimonial jurisprudence, a lack of harmony with in-laws or a
husband dedicating attention and care to his parents and family
members cannot, under any circumstance, be construed as a
justifiable or sufficient ground for a wife to abandon the
matrimonial home and subsequently claim maintenance.
25. Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. clearly stipulates that no wife
shall be entitled to receive maintenance from her husband if,
without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with him. A valid
and sufficient reason in law implies circumstances such as complete
neglect, deprivation of fundamental rights by the husband, failure to
protect the wife from severe cruelty, or subjecting her to continuous
physical or mental abuse.
26. The expectation that a husband must severe ties with or
withdraw attention from his parents to appease his wife is legally
recognized as unreasonable. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Narendra v. K. Meena, (2016) 9 SCC 455 : (2016) 4 SCC (Civ)
519 : 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1114 at page 458, categorically held:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/8/2026
5:24:23 PM
10
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18129
CRR No.1229/2022
“11. We feel that there was no fault on the part of the
appellant nor was there any reason for the respondent
wife to make an attempt to commit suicide. No husband
would ever be comfortable with or tolerate such an act by
his wife and if the wife succeeds in committing suicide,
then one can imagine how a poor husband would get
entangled into the clutches of law, which would virtually
ruin his sanity, peace of mind, career and probably his
entire life. The mere idea with regard to facing legal
consequences would put a husband under tremendous
stress. The thought itself is distressing. Such a mental
cruelty could not have been taken lightly by the High
Court. In our opinion, only this one event was sufficient
for the appellant husband to get a decree of divorce on
the ground of cruelty. It is needless to add that such
threats or acts constitute cruelty. Our aforesaid view is
fortified by a decision of this Court in Pankaj
Mahajan v. Dimple [Pankaj Mahajan v. Dimple, (2011)
12 SCC 1 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 685 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri)
345] wherein it has been held that giving repeated threats
to commit suicide amounts to cruelty.
12. The respondent wife wanted the appellant to get
separated from his family. The evidence shows that the
family was virtually maintained from the income of the
appellant husband. It is not a common practice or
desirable culture for a Hindu son in India to get
separated from the parents upon getting married at the
instance of the wife, especially when the son is the only
earning member in the family. A son, brought up and
given education by his parents, has a moral and legal
obligation to take care and maintain the parents, when
they become old and when they have either no income or
have a meagre income. In India, generally people do not
subscribe to the western thought, where, upon getting
married or attaining majority, the son gets separated
from the family. In normal circumstances, a wife is
expected to be with the family of the husband after the
marriage. She becomes integral to and forms part of the
family of the husband and normally without any
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/8/2026
5:24:23 PM
11
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18129
CRR No.1229/2022
justifiable strong reason, she would never insist that her
husband should get separated from the family and live
only with her.
13. In the instant case, upon appreciation of the evidence,
the trial court came to the conclusion that merely for
monetary considerations, the respondent wife wanted to
get her husband separated from his family. The averment
of the respondent was to the effect that the income of the
appellant was also spent for maintaining his family. The
said grievance of the respondent is absolutely unjustified.
A son maintaining his parents is absolutely normal in
Indian culture and ethos. There is no other reason for
which the respondent wanted the appellant to be
separated from the family—the sole reason was to enjoy
the income of the appellant. Unfortunately, the High
Court considered this to be a justifiable reason.”
27. In the present case, the record unequivocally demonstrates
that the cruelty case filed by non-applicant No.1 against the
revisionist has been dismissed. The family members were acquitted
in 2016, and the revisionist was acquitted of all charges under
Section 498-A IPC on 10.08.2019. This completely demolishes any
defense of cruelty as a justification for the wife's separate residence.
28. Furthermore, the judicial record of the connected civil
proceedings firmly establishes that the cruelty was, in fact,
committed by the wife against the husband. Upon perusal of the
order dated 13/11/2021 passed in CIS Case No.
RCSHM/2300067/2015, the Court recorded specific findings in
paragraphs 32, 33, and 34, stating:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/8/2026
5:24:23 PM
12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18129
CRR No.1229/2022
“32-
उबमऩऺ की ओय से प्रस्िुि की गई साक्ष्म एवीं दस्िावेजों
के ऩरयशीरन से मह बी ऩामा जा यहा है कक अनावेकदका द्वाया
06.12.2013
कदनाींक को अऩने ऩति आवेदक रोकेश िथा
- ,
उसके भािा बऩिा बाई भुकेश एवीं बाई भुकेश की ऩत्नी श्रीभिी
498 , 34
अरूणा के बवरूद्ध धाया ए सहऩकठि धाया बायिीम
. . . . 13
दण्ड बवधान के िहि एप आई आय प्रदशत ऩी अऩयाध
38/13 ,
क्रभाींक भकहरा थाना जजरा यिराभ ऩय दजत कयामी
, . 32
गमी थी भाननीम उच्च न्मामारम द्वाया प्रदशत ऩी
. . . . 6906/2014
एभ सी आय सी क्रभाींक आदेश कदनाींक
26.09.2016 ,
को उक्त आऩयातधक भाभरे भें से भुकेश श्रीभिी
अरूणा ऩुरूषोत्तभ एवीं ऩुष्ऩा के बवरूद्ध बवयतचि आयोऩ धाया
498 ' 34 . . .
ए सहऩकठि धाया बा द बव से कडस्चाजत कय कदमा गमा
.
था औय केवर आवेदक के बवरूद्ध बवचायण हुआ था आवेदक
को बी न्मातमक भजजस्रेि प्रथभ श्रेणी यिराभ द्वाया
. 214/14 . 31
आऩयातधक प्रकयण क प्रदशत ऩी के द्वाया कदनाींक
10.08.2019
को दोषभुक्त कय कदमा गमा है औय दोषभुबक्त के
बवरूद्ध की गई अऩीर बी सत्र न्मामारम द्वाया तनयस्ि कय दी
,
गई है इस प्रकाय अनावेकदका का मह कृत्म बी आवेदक के प्रति
क्रूयिा की श्रेणी भें आिा है।
33-
आवेदक द्वाया मह आधाय बी तरमा गमा है कक अनावेकदका
,
भानतसक बवकाय से ऩीक़िि है रेककन इस सींफींध भें आवेदक
की ओय से ऐसी कोई सभाधानप्रद साक्ष्म प्रस्िुि नही की गई है
कक अनावेकदका के सींफींध भें मह प्रभाजणि ऩामा जा सके कक वह
1
भानतसक बवकाय से ऩीकडि है। इस प्रकाय वाद प्रश्न कभाींक
' . 2 " '
प्रभाजणि एवीं वाद प्रश्न क प्रभाजणि नहीं के रूऩ भें तनजणति
ककमा जािा है।
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/8/2026
5:24:23 PM
13
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18129
CRR No.1229/2022
03 04:-
वाद प्रश्न कभाींक एवीं
34- 01 02
वाद प्रश्न क्रभाींक एवीं ऩय कदमे गमे तनष्कषत से मह
प्रभाजणि ऩामा जा यहा है कक अनावेकदका ने बवगि चाय वषों से
अतधक अवतध से मुबक्तमुक्त कायण के बफना आवेदक का
,
ऩरयत्माग कय यखा है औय आवेदक के प्रति क्रूयिा कारयि की
,
गई है रेककन अतबरेख ऩय जजस प्रकृति की साक्ष्म है कक
उबमऩऺ की दोनों ऩुत्र सींिान अनावेकदका के साथ तनवास कय
.
यही हैं अनावेकदका के प्रतिऩुयीऺण के दौयान जफ आवेदक की
ओय से मह सुझाव कदमा गमा कक अनावेकदका ने आवेदक के
बवरूद्ध आवेदक औय उसकी बाबी के भध्म गरि सींफींधों का
असत्म आयोऩ रगामा है िो अनावेकदका द्वाया अऩने
17
प्रतिऩयीऺण के ऩैया भें जवाफ कदमा गमा था कक उसने सही
आयोऩ रगामा है औय मह ऩूछे जाने ऩय कक इसका कोई प्रभाण
,
प्रस्िुि नहीं ककमा है िफ अनावेकदका ने मह जवाफ कदमा था
कक वह स्वमीं प्रभाण है। ऐसे आयोऩों का कोई ऩृथक से प्रभाण
,
हो बी नहीं सकिा है औय इसी कायण उबमऩऺ के भध्म
बववाद उत्ऩन्न होकय दोनों के भध्म किुिाऩूणत सींफींध स्थाबऩि
है औय वितभान ऩरयजस्थतिमों भें उनके भध्म साभींजस्म
हुमे
होने की सींबावना नहीं है िथा आऩस भें साथ यहने से ककसी बी
, ,
ऩऺ के जीवन स्वास््म एवीं ऺेभ को ऺति कारयि हो सकिी है
- -
दोनों ही ऩऺ एक ऩय आयोऩ रगािे साथ साथ यहने
दूसये हुए
,
के तरए सहभि नहीं है उक्त ऩरयजस्थतिमों भें अतबरेख ऩय
उऩरब्ध साक्ष्म के बवश्लेषण एवीं बववेचना उऩयाींि मह घोषणा
“
की जािी है कक
29. The aforesaid judicial pronouncement confirms that non-
applicant No. 1 not only lived separately without justifiable ground
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/8/2026
5:24:23 PM
14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18129
CRR No.1229/2022
but also leveled false and deeply scandalous allegations of an illicit
relationship between the revisionist and his sister-in-law.
30. Such character assassination is recognized as the most severe
form of mental cruelty. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar
Bhate, (2003) 6 SCC 334:
“7. The question that requires to be answered first is as to
whether the averments, accusations and character
assassination of the wife by the appellant husband in the
written statement constitutes mental cruelty for sustaining
the claim for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act.
The position of law in this regard has come to be well
settled and declared that levelling disgusting accusations
of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person
outside wedlock and allegations of extra-marital
relationship is a grave assault on the character, honour,
reputation, status as well as the health of the wife. Such
aspersions of perfidiousness attributed to the wife, viewed
in the context of an educated Indian wife and judged by
Indian conditions and standards would amount to worst
form of insult and cruelty, sufficient by itself to
substantiate cruelty in law, warranting the claim of the
wife being allowed. That such allegations made in the
written statement or suggested in the course of
examination and by way of cross-examination satisfy the
requirement of law has also come to be firmly laid down
by this Court. On going through the relevant portions of
such allegations, we find that no exception could be taken
to the findings recorded by the Family Court as well as
the High Court [Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela
Vijaykumar Bhate, (2001) 2 DMC 64 (Bom)] . We find
that they are of such quality, magnitude and consequence
as to cause mental pain, agony and suffering amounting
to the reformulated concept of cruelty in matrimonial law
causing profound and lasting disruption and driving the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/8/2026
5:24:23 PM
15
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18129
CRR No.1229/2022
wife to feel deeply hurt and reasonably apprehend that it
would be dangerous for her to live with a husband who
was taunting her like that and rendered the maintenance
of matrimonial home impossible.”
31. Furthermore, the precise applicability of Section 125(4) of
the Cr.P.C. and the concept of 'refusal to live with the husband
without sufficient reason' was recently elucidated by the Supreme
Court in Rina Kumari v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto, (2025) 3 SCC 33
: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 72, wherein it observed:
“15. Such disqualification, by way of an exception, was
envisaged under Section 488(4) of the old Code, which is
replicated, almost verbatim, in Section 125(4)CrPC. It
reads thus:
“ 125. (4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an [Subs.
for “allowance” by Act 50 of 2001, Section 2(iii) (w.e.f.
24-9-2001).] [allowance for the maintenance or the
interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the
case may be,] from her husband under this section 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.”
41. The reason for this is not far to gather. In Rohtash
Singh v. Ramendri [Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri, (2000) 3
SCC 180 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 597] , this Court clarified that
a wife, who suffered a decree of divorce on the ground of
deserting her husband, would not be entitled to
maintenance under Section 125CrPC as long as the
marriage subsisted, but she would be entitled to such
maintenance once she attained the status of a divorced
wife, in the light of the definition of a “wife” in
Explanation (b) to Section 125(1)CrPC. Dinesh,
therefore, sought to protect himself from a claim by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/8/2026
5:24:23 PM
16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18129
CRR No.1229/2022
Reena for maintenance by projecting the disobeyed
restitution decree as a defence and as long as she did not
attain the status of a divorced wife, that protection would
endure to his benefit. This stalemate of sorts created by
Dinesh clearly reflects his lack of bona fides and
demonstrates his attempt to disown all responsibility
towards his wife, Reena. These factors, taken
cumulatively, clearly manifest that Reena had more than
sufficient reason to stay away from the society of her
husband, Dinesh, and her refusal to live with him,
notwithstanding the passing of a decree for restitution of
conjugal rights, therefore, cannot be held against her. In
consequence, the disqualification under Section
125(4)CrPC was not attracted and the High Court erred
grievously in applying the same and holding that Reena
was not entitled to the maintenance granted to her by the
”
Family Court.
32. Applying the settled propositions of law to the factual matrix
of the present case, this Court finds that non-applicant No. 1 has
completely failed to establish any justifiable reason to reside
separately from the revisionist. The reasoning propagated by the
learned trial court regarding attention towards other family
members is entirely devoid of legal merit.
33. On the contrary, the record affirmatively reflects that non-
applicant No. 1 subjected the revisionist to severe mental cruelty,
lodged a false criminal prosecution under Section 498-A IPC
resulting in acquittal, and leveled baseless, character-assassinating
allegations regarding illicit relations.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/8/2026
5:24:23 PM
17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18129
CRR No.1229/2022
34. Consequently, the conduct of non-applicant No. 1 falls
squarely within the disqualification envisaged under Section 125(4)
of the Cr.P.C. She has refused to live with the husband without any
sufficient or justifiable reason, and thereby, the impugned order
directing payment of maintenance to her suffers from gross
illegality and perversity.
35. However, the disqualification of the wife does not legally or
morally absolve the revisionist of his primary liability to maintain
his minor children. Non-applicant No. 2 and non-applicant No. 3
are innocent parties and cannot be deprived of their legitimate right
to sustenance and education. Considering the prevailing economic
conditions, the maintenance awarded to them by the lower court
warrants an equitable enhancement.
36. In view of the exhaustive analysis and the findings recorded
hereinabove, the present Criminal Revision is partly allowed . The
impugned order dated 08/03/2022 passed by the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Ratlam in MJCR No. 48/2016 is hereby
modified to the following extent.
37. The direction to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month
towards the maintenance of non-applicant No. 1 (Wife) is set aside .
The application for maintenance preferred by non-applicant No. 1
stands dismissed .
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/8/2026
5:24:23 PM
18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18129
CRR No.1229/2022
38. The maintenance amount provided to non-applicant No. 2
and non-applicant No. 3 (children), which was initially fixed at Rs.
5,000/- each per month, is hereby increased to Rs. 7,500/- each per
month. The revisionist is directed to pay a total consolidated
amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month towards the maintenance of both
children.
39. It is directed that the aforesaid maintenance amount awarded
to the children shall be payable from the date of the application
filed before the learned Family Court. It is further made clear that
any amount already paid by the revisionist to the non-applicants,
whether as interim maintenance during the pendency of the
proceedings or pursuant to the impugned order, shall be duly
adjusted against the total arrears calculated in terms of this modified
order.
40. The revisionist is directed to clear the outstanding arrears,
after making the aforesaid adjustments, within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
41. The present Criminal Revision stands disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
(Jai Kumar Pillai)
Judge
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/8/2026
5:24:23 PM
19
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18129
CRR No.1229/2022
hk/
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/8/2026
5:24:23 PM