A wife who leaves the matrimonial home without reasonable cause is disqualified from maintenance.

The petitioner-wife, K. R. Roopa, and the respondent-husband, B. M. Murlidar, were married in 1995 and lived together for approximately 25 years. They had two daughters. In 2021, during the COVID-19 period, the wife left the matrimonial home to care for her parents and sister, who had contracted COVID-19. She did not return despite the husband’s requests. The wife alleged that she had been harassed and subjected to cruelty, but the Family Court found no substantive proof of such allegations

The wife and her two daughters filed Crl. Misc. No. 390/2022 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru. By order dated 29 November 2023, the Family Court rejected the wife’s and elder daughter’s claims for maintenance, but awarded the younger daughter ₹8,000 per month until her marriage or attainment of suitable employment and directed the husband to bear her educational expenses. The wife challenged that order under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act

Whether the petitioner-wife established that the respondent-husband neglected or refused to maintain her, and that she had sufficient reasonable cause to live separately from him, so as to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.?

Whether the Family Court’s refusal to award maintenance to the wife warranted interference in revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act?

The Court applied Section 125 Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, under which maintenance proceedings are intended to advance social justice, prevent exploitation, protect vulnerable persons, and uphold human dignity

A wife claiming maintenance must establish that: (i) the husband neglected or refused to maintain her; (ii) she is unable to maintain herself; and (iii) the husband has sufficient means to maintain her

A wife who voluntarily lives separately without reasonable cause or justification is disqualified from claiming maintenance from her husband

The revision jurisdiction under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act permits interference only where the Family Court’s findings warrant correction

The Court held that the wife failed to prove neglect or refusal by the husband and did not establish any reasonable cause for withdrawing from his company

The evidence showed that the parties had lived together for more than 25 years, that the husband had supported the family’s educational needs, purchased a house site in the wife’s name through a loan, and continued to take responsibility for the children’s education

The wife’s own complaint indicated that she had gone to her maternal home to care for her parents and sister during the COVID-19 period, and her statement to the police showed that the husband had approached her parents’ house asking her to return

Since the allegations of harassment and cruelty were unsupported by substantive evidence, the Court found that the wife had refused to live with the husband without reasonable cause. Consequently, the statutory requirements for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. were not satisfied

Finding no ground to interfere with the Family Court’s order, the Court dismissed RPFC No. 133 of 2024. The Family Court’s direction granting the younger daughter ₹8,000 per month and directing the husband to bear her educational expenses remained undisturbed