Wife not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC if residing separately without sufficient cause.

The applicant wife (Applicant No. 1) and the respondent husband married on 03.05.2022; a son (Applicant No. 2) was born from the wedlock on 18.04.2023

Applicant No. 1 alleged dowry harassment, physical assault during pregnancy, and non-support for birth expenses, leading her to lodge a police complaint and leave the matrimonial home on 24.04.2023

The respondent husband countered that the wife refused to do household work, pressured him to live separately from his family, and attempted suicide in September 2022

In the underlying proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC, the Family Court, Raigarh, via order dated 03.01.2026, granted maintenance of ₹3,000/- per month to the minor son but denied maintenance to the wife on the ground that she was residing separately without sufficient cause

The applicants challenged this denial before the High Court of Chhattisgarh

1. Whether the learned Family Court erred in law and fact by denying maintenance to the wife while granting it to the minor child

2. Whether the wife’s departure from the matrimonial home was supported by "just and sufficient cause" under the law

The court primarily considered Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, regarding the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now replaced by the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), which mandates that a wife is entitled to maintenance unless she refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason

The court further relied on the doctrine of judicial discretion in maintenance matters, where the dependency and legal obligation toward a minor child are distinct from the contested entitlement of a spouse

The High Court scrutinized the evidence and observations recorded by the Family Court. It noted that while the applicant claimed cruelty and dowry harassment, the Family Court found a lack of sufficient evidence to corroborate these claims as "just cause" for separate residence

The court observed that the lower court had properly appreciated the facts and evidence on record to conclude that the wife was living separately without a valid reason

The analysis distinguished between the minor child’s inherent right to maintenance—arising from his dependent status and the father's absolute legal obligation—and the wife's claim, which is conditional upon her conduct and the validity of her reasons for desertion

Consequently, the High Court found that the lower court’s exercise of judicial discretion was neither erroneous nor unjustified given the absence of proof of cruelty

The court affirmed the Family Court’s decision to grant ₹3,000/- per month to the minor child (Applicant No. 2) while denying relief to the wife (Applicant No. 1) on the basis of unjustified separate residence

The Registry was directed to transmit the order to the concerned Family Court for compliance