Wife's Right to Maintenance Intact Unless Voluntary Desertion is Proved: Gauhati HC

The Gauhati High Court has reaffirmed that a wife’s right to live with dignity and maintain the same standard of life as her husband remains paramount, especially when she has been subjected to mental torture and driven out of her matrimonial home. The Bench emphasized that husbands cannot escape the statutory obligation of maintenance by merely alleging voluntary desertion without discharging the burden of proof to justify such claims. 

Justice Mitali Thakuria presided over the case, which challenged concurrent findings of lower courts awarding maintenance to a wife against her husband, an Assistant Professor. The Bench scrutinized the application of Section 125(4) of the CrPC, emphasizing that mere separate living does not disqualify a spouse from financial support unless proof of unjustified withdrawal is established.

Court's Rationale on Maintenance and Torture

The Gauhati High Court noted that the petitioner-husband had filed for divorce immediately after one year of marriage without ever seeking the restitution of conjugal rights, indicating a lack of intention to continue the marital relationship. While the husband argued that the wife's petition lacked specific allegations of physical torture, the Bench found that the records sufficiently established mental torture that justified her living separately. The Gauhati High Court observed that “it is seen that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Session Judge while passing the order in the Revision Petition had discussed as to how she was subjected to torture by the petitioner side, which bound her to leave her matrimonial house. Thus, it cannot be held that there was no disclosure of any torture on the respondent or there was no justification in the evidence as well as in the statement made in the petition to justify the ground for leaving the matrimonial house by the respondent.” Addressing the standard of maintenance, the Gauhati High Court referred to Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan ( "AIR 2015 SC 2025": 2015 CaseBase(SC) 366) to emphasize that maintenance must be adequate for a wife to live with dignity. 

Background

The dispute originated from a maintenance petition filed under Section 125 of the CrPC by the respondent-wife in 2016. The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Jorhat, had directed the petitioner, an Assistant Professor, to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month. This order was subsequently upheld by the Sessions Judge, Jorhat, in a revision petition in 2022. The petitioner-husband moved the High Court under Section 482 and Section 401 of the CrPC, contending that the wife had voluntarily deserted him and was therefore disqualified under Section 125(4). He relied on Bheekha Ram Vs. Goma Devi and Ors and Kalidas Vs. Parwatibal to argue that neglect must be established.

However, the respondent-wife countered that she was subjected to torture and faced acute financial hardship, with arrears exceeding Rs. 7,50,000/-. She relied on Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena Vs. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato, asserting that even non-compliance with a restitution decree does not automatically bar maintenance. The Gauhati High Court, finding no merit in the husband's petition, dismissed the criminal petition and vacated the earlier interim stay.

Case Details:
Case No.: Crl.Pet./1292/2022
Neutral Citation: 2026:GAU-AS:16141
Case Title: SANKAR BISWAS VS. PUSPA PAUL
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): MR. DITUL DAS, MR. R RAHMAN
For the Respondent(s): MR. M K DAS (LEGAL AID COUNSEL), G BORUAH

Source: 2026 CaseBase(GAU) 1599