Wife refusing to cohabit without justifiable cause is barred from claiming maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC.

The applicant (wife) married respondent no. 2 (husband) in 2009. She alleged ill-treatment and harassment by her husband and in-laws, leading her to return to her parental home and file an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC

The husband denied the allegations and expressed willingness to take her back.

During cross-examination at the Family Court, the applicant admitted that she had not explicitly stated she was thrown out or deserted

She further testified that even if the husband met her conditions or agreed to live separately from his joint family, she would refuse to cohabit with him

The Family Court, Rajkot, dismissed her maintenance application on 19.07.2013, citing her refusal to live with her husband without sufficient reason

1. Whether a wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC if she refuses to live with her husband without a justifiable cause or sufficient reason

2. Whether the Family Court’s dismissal of the maintenance application based on Section 125(4) of the CrPC was legally sound and supported by the evidence on record

The Court applied Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which mandates that a wife is not entitled to receive maintenance if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband or if the parties are living separately by mutual consent

The Court further adhered to the standard of revisional jurisdiction established in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr. (2012) 9 SCC 460, which stipulates that findings of fact by a lower court should not be disturbed unless they are found to be perverse, arbitrary, or suffer from a palpable error of law

The Court analyzed the applicant’s testimony and found a "recalcitrant approach"

It noted that the applicant failed to prove she was deserted; rather, her own admissions in cross-examination revealed a categorical refusal to return to the matrimonial home, even if the husband agreed to live separately from his parents or met her specific conditions

The husband had filed a pursis (written statement) at Exhibit 11 declaring his willingness to resume cohabitation, which the wife rejected without providing evidence of cruelty or justifiable fear

Consequently, the Court reasoned that the case fell squarely within the exclusionary scope of Section 125(4), as the wife chose to live separately without a valid or justifiable cause, thereby failing to perform her matrimonial obligations

The Revision Application was dismissed, and the lower court's order dated 19.07.2013 was upheld