Filing for Divorce and Failure to Demonstrate Willingness to Cohabit Constitute Just Cause for Separate Residence

The Applicant (husband) and Respondent No. 1 (wife) were married in 2017 and have two sons.

Following matrimonial disputes, the wife began living separately with the elder son (Respondent No. 2), while the younger son (Respondent No. 3) remained with the father.

The Applicant alleged the wife deserted him without cause and subjected his family to cruelty, whereas the wife sought maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

On 28.03.2026, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, awarded maintenance of ₹3,000 per month each to the wife and elder son from the date of the application.

The Applicant challenged this order via criminal revision, arguing he did not neglect the wife, that she left without sufficient cause, and that the quantum was excessive given his limited income as a mechanic.

1. Whether the Family Court erred in finding that the wife had "sufficient cause" to live separately from the husband.

2. Whether the award of maintenance from the date of application, rather than the date of the order, was legally sustainable without specific reasoning.

3. Whether the quantum of maintenance fixed was proportionate to the Applicant’s financial capacity and liabilities.

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which mandates that a person with sufficient means must maintain their wife and children if they neglect or refuse to do so.

Under this section, a wife is entitled to maintenance if she is unable to maintain herself and is living separately for a "sufficient reason".

A husband's initiation of divorce proceedings can be interpreted as a refusal to maintain or cohabit, thereby justifying the wife's separate residence.

The High Court observed that the Family Court correctly identified a "sufficient cause" for separate residence, noting that the Applicant had not only failed to provide a specific defense regarding his willingness to maintain the wife but had also initiated divorce proceedings against her.

The Court noted that while the Respondent No. 3 (the younger son) was denied maintenance because he resided with the father, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were rightfully entitled to support.

Regarding the financial capacity, the Court held that even in the absence of absolute documentary evidence of the Applicant's garage income, the Family Court’s assessment of ₹3,000 each was "just and proper" based on the material available on record.

The High Court found no jurisdictional error or perversity in the trial court's decision to grant maintenance from the date of application.

The court affirmed the direction to the Applicant to pay ₹3,000/- per month to Respondent No. 1 and ₹3,000/- per month to Respondent No. 2 from the date of the application.