The question that arose in Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato and another (Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2025) was whether a husband, who secures a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, stands absolved of paying maintenance to his wife by virtue of Section 125(4), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if his wife refuses to abide by the said decree and return to the matrimonial home.
The Supreme Court answered it in negative by holding that mere passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights at the husband’s behest and non-compliance therewith by the wife would not, by itself, be sufficient to attract the disqualification u/s.125(4) or be determinative straightaway of her right to maintenance – It would depend on the facts of each case to be decided, on the evidence available, whether the wife still had valid and sufficient reason to refuse to live with her husband, despite such a decree
It further held that no doubt, in Shanti Kumar Panda vs. Shakuntala Devi this Court held that a decision by a Criminal Court would not bind the Civil Court while a decision by the Civil Court would bind the Criminal Court. However, maintenance proceedings are essentially civil in nature
Further, in Iqbal Singh Marwah and another vs. Meenakshi Marwah and another, while dealing with the contention that an effort should be made to avoid conflict of findings between Civil and Criminal Courts, a Constitution Bench pointed out that there is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other, as both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein.