Husband has to pay maintenance under Section 125 CrPC to estranged wife even if he has made attempts to cohabit with her: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently held that even if the husband claims that he is ready to cohabit with the estranged wife, he will still be liable to pay maintenance to the wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). .Single-judge Justice Bharati Dangre therefore, dismissed a man's plea, who challenged the order of a family court that had ordered him to pay ₹18,000 to the wife and his two children. The bench took into account the act that section 125 (4) of CrPC dis-entitles a woman to claim maintenance, only if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. "None of the above ingredients are established by the 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," the Court said in the order passed on February 9. .The husband had challenged the maintenance orders on the ground that he had made several attempts to bring back his wife, who had left the matrimonial house. The wife had claimed that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the husband and thus, she was compelled to leave the matrimonial house and stay with her parents. The husband argued that he was already under financial loss and also had borrowed an amount of ₹15 lakh, which he has to repay now. .However, the bench noted that the wife was unable to maintain herself and it is not the husband's case that she has her independent earning."Even if he is in financial distressfulcondition, he cannot avoid to maintain his wife as well as his children. Since the husband has not disputed his liability towards the amount of maintenance as well as educational expenses, it is his morale and legal responsibility to maintain the wife who is unable to maintain herself," Justice Dangre underscored. With these observations, the bench, dismissed the husband's plea.Advocate RR Vyas appeared for the husband. Advocate IA Fidvi represented the wife. .[Read Order]