Orissa High Court: In a revision petition challenging the Family Court’s decision directing the revisionist-husband to pay Rs. 3000/- per month as maintenance to the wife, the Single-Judge Bench of G. Satapathy*, J. dismissed the petition and upheld the Family Court’s decision.
Further, the Court observed that when the husband doubts the character of his wife without any proof, she has enough reason to live separately from him.
Soon after their marriage, the wife started living at her parents’ house. Accordingly, the wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’). The Family Court allowing the application, directed for payment of maintenance as stated above. The husband’s case was that the wife refused to live with him without any sufficient cause and thereby, she was not entitled to maintenance and that without proof of income, the Family Court granted a higher amount of maintenance to the wife.
The Court noted that the husband contended that the wife’s character was questionable, and said that such contention itself was a ground for the wife to live separately from her husband. Further, the Court noted that the wife was cross-examined by suggesting that she has an extra-marital relationship. The Court said that when her husband raised doubt about her character, she was justified in refusing to live with her husband.
The Bench stated that it is quite natural for a wife to refuse to live with her husband who doubted her chastity, inasmuch as the chastity of a woman is not only dearest to her, but also is a priceless possession in her.
Thus, the Court observed that when the husband doubts the character of his wife without any proof, she has enough reason to live separately from him. In the matter at hand, the Court said that without producing any proof of the infidelity of his wife, the husband simply character assassinated his wife which itself is a ground for the wife to refuse to live with him.
Further, regarding the excess amount of maintenance directed by the Family Court, the Court said that the wife is entitled to be maintained commensurate to the standard of living of her husband. The Court noted that the husband worked as a skilled labourer with a monthly income of Rs.9,000/- per month. The Court said that if the monthly income of the husband is Rs.9,000/- per month, he could part with Rs.3,000/- from such income for the maintenance of his wife who is unable to maintain herself and, therefore, the Family Court had not committed any illegality to grant monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/-.
[Indrajit Mohanta v. Mamuni Mohanta, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 69, decided on: 09-01-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: S.P. Dash, Advocate
For Respondent: B.K. Mishra, Advocate
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Wife can’t stay with the husband since he suspected her character…fine…but why take money from him then? Part ways and find own paths! Why live on an estranged persons doles! Double standards!
Isn’t the husband having this much right to even cast aspersions on his wife’s character, if a situation arises. Can the Court give 100 percent assurance that the man’s thoughts are baseless.
The judgement creates a milestone for keeping the dignity of married woman
Don’t mind I respect women but What will happen if the situation is reversed …. What will happen in case the man is found as a victim .. how will he collect evidence because he gives more than eight hours as a daily labourer earning only 3000 . After finding his wife with her lover will he take pictures as evidence or kill her lover (Shawshank redemption movie ).So does the judiciary protect its people..or here victims get victimized of both spouse and of the system.
The system itself is very complicated, cases take long time to solve here where victims suffer and culprit get freedom ( both genders suffer) .
So what can be done , understanding and respecting to each other, cooperation, love are very important in marital life otherwise no one in this world to solve your problem. But remember money plays an important role here (Atul Subhas case ).