Mumbai: Even if the husband claims that he is ready to cohabit with the estranged wife, he is liable to pay her maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), observed the Bombay High Court.
Justice Bharati Dangre of Nagpur bench of the HC made the observation while dismissing an application filed by the husband challenging the order of the Family Court at Bhandara.
Section 125(4) of the CrPC, “dis-entitles” a woman to claim maintenance under this section if “she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent”.
“None of the above ingredients are established by the applicant-husband as merely saying that he was and is always ready and willing to cohabit is not sufficient ground to absolve himself of the liability to pay maintenance by projecting that without any sufficient reason wife has left his company,” averred justice Dangre.
The family court, on August 1, 2022, directed the husband to pay ₹8,000 to the wife and ₹5,000 each for his two minor children towards maintenance under section 125 of the CrPC.
He challenged this order before the HC claiming that he was willing to cohabit with his wife and has made several attempts to bring her back to the matrimonial house.
Physical and mental cruelty
However, the wife opposed the plea alleging physical and mental cruelty at the husband’s hands, which forced her to leave the matrimonial house and return to her parents.
The husband further claimed that he was under financial loss and had borrowed ₹15 lakh for business and had to repay the same.
Dismissing the argument, the court said that even if he suffered loss, he cannot avoid paying maintenance to his wife. The court further noted that the wife was unable to maintain herself and the husband too has not claimed that she has independent income.
Dismissing the husband’s application, the HC has asked him to pay maintenance to the wife and clear the arrears by March 31. “It is made clear that there is no application for extension of time, which shall be entertained,” the court added.
