Is Wife entitled to get maintenance if living in husband’s home?

Introduction

The concept of maintenance has its origins in a civilised society's social justice system. In the case of Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse and Anothers[1], the Supreme Court clarified why maintenance is provided. "The goal of providing maintenance is to empower the poor while simultaneously establishing social justice, or equality and dignity for all. It is a symbol of society values." In India, both personal and general laws provide for the right to claim maintenance, and such a right cannot be revoked by an agreement[2]. Maintenance can be given either during the course of the case or at the end of the case.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, people were stranded at home. When the country was put on lockdown, families, friends, and strangers rarely had to camp together. So did divorced or separated men and women who were either forced or chose to live together for the sake of their children. When ex-spouses or spouses share a home, marital disputes take on a whole new meaning. This difference in simple residential dynamics is bound to cause not-so-simple conflicts, especially when it comes to wife maintenance. Maintenance, a payment made to avoid destitution and vagrancy, must now be decided for wives who share a roof with their husbands or who live under their husbands' roofs.[PH1]

Maintenance for Wives under CrPc

A husband is required to aid his wife under Section 125 of the CrPC (who is unable to maintain herself). Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors[3] was decided by the Supreme Court "was developed to give relief of a woman her pain, grief, and financial hardship who has left her matrimonial house for the reasons stated in the provision, so that the Court can make suitable arrangements so that she can support herself and her children. She has the legal right to live as she would have in her husband's home ". The Supreme Court ruled in Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha that a wife's maintenance should not be refused only because she had a source of income.

Section 25 of its religious counterpart allows a plea for maintenance by either the husband or wife. In Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai, the Supreme Court of India stated that the purpose of this section is to provide moral support to those who cannot support themselves and thus put an end to vagrancy[4]. The test is whether the wife can maintain herself as well as she did in her husband's home. A wife's earnings are never a bar to claiming maintenance. The section discusses conditional maintenance for a wife living with her husband but does not address circumstances in which the divorced couple may be forced to live together.

Essentials of Section 125

The neglect of the divorced wife's husband is an important factor that courts consider when deciding maintenance applications. Because the section's goal is to prevent destitution and vagrancy, the Supreme Court made significant observations about the maintenance amount paid to the husband and wife in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan. It was observed that the wife on the receiving end should be able to live in dignity with the amount she receives, just as she did in her marital home, and that sustenance cannot be equated with mere survival.[5]Regardless of whether a woman receives maintenance, if she is subjected to destitution or forced to beg for a living, the section's goal is immediately defeated. In the context of her life in her marital home, the wife should be able to live in reasonable comfort. When the wife's need to live a dignified life is elevated, there is always the risk that the maintenance ordered to pay will render the husband himself destitute, which is neither an ideal situation for him nor the woman to whom he is paying maintenance. Keeping this in mind, the Court ruled that the amount cannot be so "extortionate or excessive" that it renders the husband helpless.

Neglect and State of Destitution

In a situation where the wife moves out and lives on her own following the dissolution of her marriage, both neglect and destitution are easy to define. Destitution simply means that she is extremely poor, and her husband's neglect in providing for her needs after she moved out of his home is what caused her poverty. While the goal of Section 125 is to prevent destitution, this does not necessarily imply that the relief is limited to those who are at risk of destitution. An application for maintenance is thus decided by whether or not the husband has neglected her, not by whether or not she is close to destitution. However, a divorced woman living under her husband's roof may not fit into the same definition at first glance, because the lines are drawn differently this time. Before deciding whether or not to allow the application for maintenance, certain questions must be answered. Is it neglect if the wife lives in the home of her ex-husband? What is the maintenance parameter when the wife is literally living in her marital home and maintenance needs to be fixed in a way that provides her with the same comfort as her matrimonial home?

Physical Separation of Husband and Wife

A maintenance amount determined on the basis of the wife enjoying the same standard of living as she did when she resided in her matrimonial home suggests that physical separation is an important factor to consider when filing for maintenance. There is an implicit assumption that a wife's living situation shifts or changes only when she moves out and loses the convenience of her husband's home. When a woman shares her ex-home, husband's she may face the same issues. In fact, this change or rather fall in standard of living is more dangerous than physically moving out; the change in the woman's living standards can only be seen closely. A man may allow his ex-wife to live in his home but then neglect her by denying her the basic comforts she had as his wife. The woman's literacy and income levels also affect her living standards in this situation, where an illiterate, unemployed woman may still be considered to have a roof over her head, but in reality, she may be brutally ignored by her husband in providing basic needs.

In case of Sitaram v. Anita, (2021)

The Delhi High Court, in deciding an appeal case in which the petitioner appealed against a Family Court order directing him to pay maintenance to his wife, who lives in the same house as him, observed that a wife can be deserted while living in the same house as him. According to the petition, physical separation of husband and wife is required to seek maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The court went on to say that, unlike neglect and refusal to maintain, physical separation is not required by Section 125. It dismissed the appeal and ordered that the wife be paid maintenance.

Conclusion

The aforementioned decision does pave the way for a new lens to be used when deciding maintenance applications by bringing more women under the scope of Section 125. However, the "just exception" mentioned in the judgement raises several issues because deciding what happens between the four walls of a house is never an easy process, and if not handled with extreme caution, it can result in gross injustice.

~Authored by Sagar Singla

REFERENCES [1] (2014) 1 SCC 188 [2] In Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Ms. Kalyani Sanjay Kale and Anr, the Bombay High Court ruled that "The wife's statutory right to maintenance cannot be bartered away or violated by establishing an agreement not to claim maintenance. A clause like this in the agreement would be void under section 23 of the Indian Contract Act because it is against public policy ", Decision dated May 26, 2020 in Criminal Revision Application No. 164 of 2019. [3] AIR 2014 SC 2875 [4] Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai MANU/SC/8141/2007. [5] Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan MANU/SC/0380/2015.