{"id":339021,"date":"2025-01-14T18:00:55","date_gmt":"2025-01-14T12:30:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=339021"},"modified":"2025-01-14T17:59:26","modified_gmt":"2025-01-14T12:29:26","slug":"disqualification-under-s1254-not-attracted-on-wife-non-compliance-decree-for-restitution-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/14\/disqualification-under-s1254-not-attracted-on-wife-non-compliance-decree-for-restitution-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Disqualification under S. 125(4) of CrPC not attracted on wife\u2019s non-compliance of decree for restitution of conjugal rights\u2019; SC orders Rs. 10,000 monthly maintenance"},"content":{"rendered":"<style>\n.animate-charcter{background-image: linear-gradient(-225deg, #231557 0%, #44107a 29%, #ff1361 67%, #fff800 100%); background-size: 200% auto; -webkit-background-clip: text; -webkit-text-fill-color: transparent; animation: textclip 0s linear infinite;}\n@keyframes textclip {to {background-position: 200% center;}}\n<\/style>\n<div style=\"text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;\">\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Supreme Court:<\/span> In a criminal appeal by a wife against a decision of the Jharkhand High Court, whereby the question that will a husband, who secures a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, stand absolved of paying maintenance to his wife by virtue of Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001519355\" target=\"_blank\">125(4)<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726935\" target=\"_blank\">Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<\/a>, if his wife refuses to abide by the said decree and return to the matrimonial home, was answered in affirmative, the Division Bench of Sanjiv Khanna., CJI and <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Sanjay Kumar, J<\/span>. allowing the appeal set aside the impugned decision after considering all the relevant facts and circumstance. The Bench held that the wife had more than sufficient reason to stay away from the society of her husband, and her refusal to live with him, notwithstanding the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, therefore, could not have been held against her. In consequence, the disqualification under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001519355\" target=\"_blank\">125(4)<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726935\" target=\"_blank\">CrPC<\/a> was not attracted and the High Court erred grievously in applying the same and holding that wife was not entitled to the maintenance granted to her by the Family Court.<\/p>\n<h3>Background<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">After marriage in 2014, the wife started living at her parental home in 2015. The husband invoked Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001543765\" target=\"_blank\">9<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726956\" target=\"_blank\">Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/a>, for restitution of conjugal rights. The husband&#8217;s suit for restitution of conjugal rights was decreed, with a direction to ensure the respect and dignity of his wife and to see that her conditions with regard to cooking and toilet facilities were complied with. However, the wife did not abide by this decree.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Thereafter, the wife lodged a complaint under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001561850\" target=\"_blank\">498A<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726960\" target=\"_blank\">Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (&#8216;IPC&#8217;) against the husband and resultantly, he was sent to prison and was consequently suspended from service for some time. A suit for maintenance under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001519355\" target=\"_blank\">125<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726935\" target=\"_blank\">Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<\/a> (&#8216;CrPC&#8217;) was instituted. Allowing the same, the husband was directed to pay 10,000\/- per month to his wife. In the revision application against the said order, the High Court noted that there was a specific finding that the wife had withdrawn from her husband&#8217;s society without reasonable excuse and that she had not returned to the matrimonial home despite the said decree for restitution of conjugal rights, which she had not even chosen to challenge by way of appeal and held that Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001519355\" target=\"_blank\">125(4)<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726935\" target=\"_blank\">CrPC<\/a> would come to husband&#8217;s aid and, in consequence, the wife would not be entitled to maintenance.<\/p>\n<h3>Analysis and Decision<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court noted that in 41st Report, the Law Commission of India, while adverting to Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, observed that the primary justification for placing provisions relating to maintenance was aimed at preventing starvation and vagrancy, leading to commission of crime; and in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Chaturbhuj<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Sita Bai<\/span> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/M813E2wN\" target=\"_blank\">(2008) 2 SCC 316<\/a>, it was observed that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his neglect but to prevent the vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing and shelter by a speedy remedy.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Regarding the question at hand, the Court noted that several High Courts have taken a stand, but the views are inconsistent. The Court also referred to views taken by this Court in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Kirtikant D. Vadodaria<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">State of Gujarat<\/span> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/sQ36349u\" target=\"_blank\">(1996) 4 SCC 479<\/a> and <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Amrita Singh<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Ratan Singh<\/span> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/26Fl46p2\" target=\"_blank\">(2018) 17 SCC 737<\/a>, that <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">mere &#8216;failure&#8217; of the wife to live with her husband would not be sufficient to disentitle her from receiving maintenance from him, especially as the crucial word carefully chosen in the relevant provision is &#8216;refusal&#8217;;<\/span> and where the wife was treated with cruelty and subjected to persistent demands for dowry, resulting in her being ousted from the matrimonial house, whereupon she was compelled to file a criminal complaint under Section 498A IPC ending in the conviction of the husband and his father, she was held to have reasonable grounds not to join the husband, thereby entitling her to maintenance.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court said that the preponderance of judicial thought weighs in favour of upholding the wife&#8217;s right to maintenance under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001519355\" target=\"_blank\">125<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726935\" target=\"_blank\">CrPC<\/a> and the mere passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights at the husband&#8217;s behest and non-compliance therewith by the wife would not, by itself, be sufficient to attract the disqualification under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001519355\" target=\"_blank\">125(4)<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726935\" target=\"_blank\">CrPC<\/a>. The Court said that it would depend on the facts of the individual case, and it would have to be decided, on the strength of the material and evidence available, whether the wife still had valid and sufficient reason to refuse to live with her husband, despite such a decree. There can be no hard and fast rule in this regard, and it must invariably depend on the distinctive facts and circumstances obtaining in each particular case.<\/p>\n<p class=\"animate-charcter\" style=\"margin-left: 36pt; text-align: center; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; margin-bottom: 3%;\">&#8220;In any event, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights secured by a husband coupled with non-compliance therewith by the wife would not be determinative straightaway either of her right to maintenance or the applicability of the disqualification under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001519355\" target=\"_blank\">125(4)<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726935\" target=\"_blank\">CrPC<\/a>.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Further, the Court outrightly rejected the contention that that the findings in the judgment for restitution of conjugal rights by the Family Court, being a Civil Court, would be binding on the Court dealing with the petition under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001519355\" target=\"_blank\">125<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726935\" target=\"_blank\">CrPC<\/a>, as they are to be treated as criminal proceedings. In this reference, the Court relied on <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Shanti Kumar Panda<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Shakuntala Devi<\/span> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/ko0Y3E7K\" target=\"_blank\">(2004) 1 SCC 438<\/a>, wherein it was 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. Saying that, the judgments passed on merits in civil proceedings have been accepted as sufficient cause to discharge or acquit a person facing prosecution on the same grounds and that this dictum is applied especially in cases where civil adjudication proceedings, like in tax cases, lead to initiation of prosecution by the authorities, the Court said that such cases are, however, different as there is a direct connect between the civil proceedings and the prosecution which is launched. However, the Court opined that the <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">said principle cannot be applied per se to proceedings for maintenance under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001519355\" target=\"_blank\">125<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726935\" target=\"_blank\">CrPC<\/a> by relying upon a judgment passed by a Civil Court on an application for restitution of conjugal rights.<\/span> Further, the Court added that <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">the two proceedings are altogether independent and are not directly or even indirectly connected, in the sense that proceedings under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001519355\" target=\"_blank\">125<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726935\" target=\"_blank\">CrPC<\/a> do not arise from proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Hence, in the matter at hand, the Court said that, the findings in the proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights, which were partly uncontested as the wife did not appear before the Family Court to adduce evidence or advance her case after filing her written statement, did not clinch the issue and the High Court ought not to have given such undue weightage to the said judgment and the findings therein.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court also highlighted that certain crucial factor as to no cross-examination of wife in the Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001519355\" target=\"_blank\">125<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726935\" target=\"_blank\">CrPC<\/a> proceedings; that she was fully dependent on her brother; that during her abortion in January 2015, the husband&#8217;s admission that he did not bear the expenditure for her treatment and her unrebutted assertion that he did not take her to the hospital or even come from Ranchi to see her; and that she was not allowed to use the toilet in the house or avail proper facilities to cook food, were overlooked and these were clear indicia of the pain and mental cruelty meted out to her.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Further, the Court applied the standard laid down in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Parveen Mehta<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Inderjit Mehta<\/span> (<a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/r2tFHU12\" target=\"_blank\">2002) 5 SCC 706<\/a>, that i<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">n a case of mental cruelty, the approach should be to take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the spouse has been subjected to mental cruelty due to the conduct of the other.<\/span> On application of the said standard, the Court said that the husband&#8217;s conduct in completely ignoring his wife, after she suffered the miscarriage of their child added to her suffering due to the ill-treatment in her matrimonial home. Therefore, the Court opined that she had just cause to not return to her matrimonial home, despite the restitution decree.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Additionally, the Court noted that the restitution decree was passed on 23-04-2022, there was no attempt made at reconciliation after 2017 and neither the execution of the decree under Order <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001523150\" target=\"_blank\">XXI Rule 32<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726944\" target=\"_blank\">CPC<\/a> was sought nor did the husband seek a decree of divorce under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001543733\" target=\"_blank\">13(1A)(ii)<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726956\" target=\"_blank\">Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Thus, allowing the appeal, the Court directed the husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000\/- per month his wife on or before the 10th day of each calendar month. Such maintenance would be payable from the date of filing of the maintenance application, i.e., 03-08-2019. Arrears of the maintenance shall be paid in three equal instalments, i.e., the first instalment by 30-04-2025, the second instalment by 31-08-2025 and the third and final instalment by 31-12-2025.<\/p>\n<p><!--\n\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">[<span style=\"font-weight: bold; color: #632423;\">Rina Kumari v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/zdX2YKi0\" target=\"_blank\">2025 SCC OnLine SC 72<\/a>, decided on: 10-01-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #000080;\">Judgment authored by: Justice Sanjay Kumar<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n<hr\/>\n\n\n\n\n<p>Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">For Petitioner:<\/span> Mohini Priya, AOR<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">For Respondent:<\/span> Anup Kumar, AOR; Pragya Choudhary, Adv.; Shruti Singh, Adv.; Vaibhav Prasad Deo, Adv.; Neha Jaiswal, Adv.; Shivam Kumar, Adv.; Awanish Gupta, Adv.; Vishnu Sharma, Standing Counsel, Adv.; Madhusmita Bora, AOR; Shiv Ram Sharma, Adv.; Dipankar Singh, Adv.; Anupama Sharma, Adv.<\/p>\n\n--><\/p>\n<div style=\"text-overflow: ellipsis; background-color: #92A8D1; text-align:justify; clear:both; text-size-adjust: auto; overflow: auto;\">\n<p style=\"font-size: 18pt; margin-top: 5px; text-align: center;\">CASE DETAILS<\/p>\n<table width=\"100%\" style=\"word-wrap: break-word; border-collapse:collapse; table-layout: fixed; margin-top: 10px;\">\n<colgroup>\n<col width=\"41%\"\/>\n<col width=\"59%\"\/>\n<\/colgroup>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\">\n<p><span style=\"color: #D4E4F7; font-weight: bold;\">Citation:<\/span><br \/> <span style=\"color: #D4E4F7; font-size: 10pt;\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/zdX2YKi0\" target=\"_blank\">2025 SCC OnLine SC 72<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #D4E4F7; font-weight: bold;\">Appellants&#160;:<\/span><br \/> Rina Kumari<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #D4E4F7; font-weight: bold;\">Respondents&#160;:<\/span><br \/> Dinesh Kumar Mahto<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\">\n<p style=\"color: #D4E4F7; font-weight: bold;\">Advocates who appeared in this case<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #D4E4F7; font-weight: bold;\">For Petitioner(s):<\/span><br \/> Mohini Priya, AOR<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #D4E4F7; font-weight: bold;\">For Respondent(s):<\/span><br \/> Anup Kumar, AOR; Pragya Choudhary, Adv.; Shruti Singh, Adv.; Vaibhav Prasad Deo, Adv.; Neha Jaiswal, Adv.; Shivam Kumar, Adv.; Awanish Gupta, Adv.; Vishnu Sharma, Standing Counsel, Adv.; Madhusmita Bora, AOR; Shiv Ram Sharma, Adv.; Dipankar Singh, Adv.; Anupama Sharma, Adv.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p style=\"font-size: 12pt; margin-top: -20px; margin-left: 5px;\"><span style=\"color: #D4E4F7; font-weight: bold;\">CORAM&#160;:<\/span><\/p>\n<div id=\"banner\" style=\"overflow: hidden; display: flex; justify-content: space-between; padding-left: 3%;\">\n<div class=\"\" style=\"max-width: 100%; max-height: 100%; font-size: 9pt; text-align: center;\">\n<p><img decoding=\"async\" height=\"100px\" width=\"100px\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scobserver.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/16.-Sanjiv_Khanna-modified.png\" alt=\"Sanjiv Khanna, CJI\" style=\"border-radius: 50%;\"><br \/><span style=\"color: black !important;\">Sanjiv Khanna, CJI<\/span><\/img><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"\" style=\"max-width: 100%; max-height: 100%; font-size: 9pt; text-align: center;\">\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/14\/know-thy-judge-supreme-court-of-india-justice-pv-sanjay-kumar-2\/\" target=\"_blank\"><img decoding=\"async\" height=\"100px\" width=\"100px\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scobserver.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/imageedit_23_3598949402-1.jpg\" alt=\"Sanjay Kumar, J.\" style=\"border-radius: 50%; border:2px solid #FF5733; padding: 1px;\"><br \/><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Sanjay Kumar, J.<\/span><\/img><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"\" style=\"max-width: 100%; max-height: 100%;\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"\" style=\"max-width: 100%; max-height: 100%;\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"\" style=\"max-width: 100%; max-height: 100%;\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"\" style=\"max-width: 100%; max-height: 100%;\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<h3 style=\"color: #000080;\">Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 &nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.ebcwebstore.com\/product_info.php?products_id=1031\" target=\"_blank\">HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.ebcwebstore.com\/product_info.php?products_id=1031\" target=\"_blank\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/code-of-criminal-procedure-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"Code of Criminal Procedure\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\" class=\"aligncenter size-large wp-image-294422\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/code-of-criminal-procedure-300x200.jpg 300w, https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/code-of-criminal-procedure-768x511.jpg 768w, https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/code-of-criminal-procedure-440x293.jpg 440w, https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/code-of-criminal-procedure-650x433.jpg 650w, https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/code-of-criminal-procedure.jpg 886w, https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/code-of-criminal-procedure-60x40.jpg 60w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<h3 style=\"color: #000080;\">Buy Penal Code, 1860 &nbsp; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ebcwebstore.com\/product_info.php?products_id=1158\" target=\"_blank\">HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.ebcwebstore.com\/product_info.php?products_id=1158\" target=\"_blank\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/penal-code-1860-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"penal code, 1860\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\" class=\"aligncenter size-large wp-image-294601\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/penal-code-1860-300x200.jpg 300w, https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/penal-code-1860-768x511.jpg 768w, https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/penal-code-1860-440x293.jpg 440w, https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/penal-code-1860-650x433.jpg 650w, https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/penal-code-1860.jpg 886w, https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/penal-code-1860-60x40.jpg 60w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p style=\"font-style: italic;\">&#8220;It would depend on the facts of the individual case, and it would have to be decided, on the strength of the material and evidence available, whether the wife still had valid and sufficient reason to refuse to live with her husband, despite such a decree. There can be no hard and fast rule in this regard, and it must invariably depend on the distinctive facts and circumstances.&#8221;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67517,"featured_media":339025,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[75779,77535,77534,55016,30681,44635,12531,5363],"class_list":["post-339021","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-cji-sanjiv-khanna","tag-decree-for-restitution-of-conjugal-rights","tag-disqualification-under-s-1254","tag-justice-pv-sanjay-kumar","tag-non-compliance","tag-sc","tag-section-125-crpc","tag-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Disqualification under S. 125(4) of CrPC not attracted on wife&#039;s non-compliance of decree for restitution: SC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"&#039;Disqualification under S. 125(4) of CrPC not attracted on wife&#039;s non-compliance of decree for restitution of conjugal rights&#039;; SC directs for Rs. 10 thousand maintenance\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/14\/disqualification-under-s1254-not-attracted-on-wife-non-compliance-decree-for-restitution-supreme-court\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"\u2018Disqualification under S. 125(4) of CrPC not attracted on wife\u2019s non-compliance of decree for restitution of conjugal rights\u2019; SC orders Rs. 10,000 monthly maintenance\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"&#039;Disqualification under S. 125(4) of CrPC not attracted on wife&#039;s non-compliance of decree for restitution of conjugal rights&#039;; SC directs for Rs. 10 thousand maintenance\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/14\/disqualification-under-s1254-not-attracted-on-wife-non-compliance-decree-for-restitution-supreme-court\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-01-14T12:30:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/S.-1254-on-non-compliance-of-restitution-decree.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"\u2018Disqualification under S. 125(4) of CrPC not attracted on wife\u2019s non-compliance of decree for restitution of conjugal rights\u2019; SC orders Rs. 10,000 monthly maintenance\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/14\/disqualification-under-s1254-not-attracted-on-wife-non-compliance-decree-for-restitution-supreme-court\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/14\/disqualification-under-s1254-not-attracted-on-wife-non-compliance-decree-for-restitution-supreme-court\/\",\"name\":\"Disqualification under S. 125(4) of CrPC not attracted on wife's non-compliance of decree for restitution: SC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/14\/disqualification-under-s1254-not-attracted-on-wife-non-compliance-decree-for-restitution-supreme-court\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/14\/disqualification-under-s1254-not-attracted-on-wife-non-compliance-decree-for-restitution-supreme-court\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/S.-1254-on-non-compliance-of-restitution-decree.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-01-14T12:30:55+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624\"},\"description\":\"'Disqualification under S. 125(4) of CrPC not attracted on wife's non-compliance of decree for restitution of conjugal rights'; SC directs for Rs. 10 thousand maintenance\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/14\/disqualification-under-s1254-not-attracted-on-wife-non-compliance-decree-for-restitution-supreme-court\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/14\/disqualification-under-s1254-not-attracted-on-wife-non-compliance-decree-for-restitution-supreme-court\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/14\/disqualification-under-s1254-not-attracted-on-wife-non-compliance-decree-for-restitution-supreme-court\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/S.-1254-on-non-compliance-of-restitution-decree.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/S.-1254-on-non-compliance-of-restitution-decree.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"S. 125(4) on non-compliance of restitution decree\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/14\/disqualification-under-s1254-not-attracted-on-wife-non-compliance-decree-for-restitution-supreme-court\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"\u2018Disqualification under S. 125(4) of CrPC not attracted on wife\u2019s non-compliance of decree for restitution of conjugal rights\u2019; SC orders Rs. 10,000 monthly maintenance\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-online-editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Disqualification under S. 125(4) of CrPC not attracted on wife's non-compliance of decree for restitution: SC | SCC Times","description":"'Disqualification under S. 125(4) of CrPC not attracted on wife's non-compliance of decree for restitution of conjugal rights'; SC directs for Rs. 10 thousand maintenance","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/14\/disqualification-under-s1254-not-attracted-on-wife-non-compliance-decree-for-restitution-supreme-court\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\u2018Disqualification under S. 125(4) of CrPC not attracted on wife\u2019s non-compliance of decree for restitution of conjugal rights\u2019; SC orders Rs. 10,000 monthly maintenance","og_description":"'Disqualification under S. 125(4) of CrPC not attracted on wife's non-compliance of decree for restitution of conjugal rights'; SC directs for Rs. 10 thousand maintenance","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/14\/disqualification-under-s1254-not-attracted-on-wife-non-compliance-decree-for-restitution-supreme-court\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-01-14T12:30:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/S.-1254-on-non-compliance-of-restitution-decree.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"\u2018Disqualification under S. 125(4) of CrPC not attracted on wife\u2019s non-compliance of decree for restitution of conjugal rights\u2019; SC orders Rs. 10,000 monthly maintenance","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/14\/disqualification-under-s1254-not-attracted-on-wife-non-compliance-decree-for-restitution-supreme-court\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/14\/disqualification-under-s1254-not-attracted-on-wife-non-compliance-decree-for-restitution-supreme-court\/","name":"Disqualification under S. 125(4) of CrPC not attracted on wife's non-compliance of decree for restitution: SC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/14\/disqualification-under-s1254-not-attracted-on-wife-non-compliance-decree-for-restitution-supreme-court\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/14\/disqualification-under-s1254-not-attracted-on-wife-non-compliance-decree-for-restitution-supreme-court\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/S.-1254-on-non-compliance-of-restitution-decree.webp","datePublished":"2025-01-14T12:30:55+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624"},"description":"'Disqualification under S. 125(4) of CrPC not attracted on wife's non-compliance of decree for restitution of conjugal rights'; SC directs for Rs. 10 thousand maintenance","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/14\/disqualification-under-s1254-not-attracted-on-wife-non-compliance-decree-for-restitution-supreme-court\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/14\/disqualification-under-s1254-not-attracted-on-wife-non-compliance-decree-for-restitution-supreme-court\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/14\/disqualification-under-s1254-not-attracted-on-wife-non-compliance-decree-for-restitution-supreme-court\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/S.-1254-on-non-compliance-of-restitution-decree.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/S.-1254-on-non-compliance-of-restitution-decree.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"S. 125(4) on non-compliance of restitution decree"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/14\/disqualification-under-s1254-not-attracted-on-wife-non-compliance-decree-for-restitution-supreme-court\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"\u2018Disqualification under S. 125(4) of CrPC not attracted on wife\u2019s non-compliance of decree for restitution of conjugal rights\u2019; SC orders Rs. 10,000 monthly maintenance"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-online-editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/S.-1254-on-non-compliance-of-restitution-decree.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":81711,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/10\/25\/order-of-cohabitation-under-decree-for-restitution-of-conjugal-rights-or-for-its-execution-cant-enforce-sexual-relations-between-estranged-spouses\/","url_meta":{"origin":339021,"position":0},"title":"Order of cohabitation under decree for restitution of conjugal rights or for its execution can\u2019t enforce sexual relations between estranged spouses","author":"Saba","date":"October 25, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"High Court of Delhi: While examining the question relating to the execution of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the Bench comprising of Pratibha Rani and Pradeep Nandrajog, JJ., held that on passing of the decree for the restitution of conjugal rights or for its execution, at the most\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":259434,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/03\/can-a-wife-be-forced-to-cohabit-and-establish-conjugal-rights\/","url_meta":{"origin":339021,"position":1},"title":"Can a wife be forced to cohabit and establish conjugal rights? Or can a decree do so? Guj HC answers","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 3, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Gujarat High Court: The Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and Niral R. Mehta, JJ., while dealing with a matter regarding restitution of conjugal rights, stated that, Section 281 of the Muhammadan Law deals with the aspect of the restitution of conjugal rights but does not throw any light as to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/1200px-Gujarat-High-Court-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/1200px-Gujarat-High-Court-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/1200px-Gujarat-High-Court-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/1200px-Gujarat-High-Court-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/1200px-Gujarat-High-Court-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":261308,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/08\/261308\/","url_meta":{"origin":339021,"position":2},"title":"Tri HC \u2502Whether maintenance granted to the wife under S. 125 CrPC can be cancelled in view of husband\u2019s obtaining a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and wife\u2019s refusal for the same?","author":"Editor","date":"February 8, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Tripura High Court: S.G. Chattopadhyay, J., decided on a petition which was filed by the petitioner challenging order passed by the Additional Judge, Family Court which stated that the petitioner was not entitled to any maintenance allowance under section 125 Cr.P.C from her husband in view of her refusal to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":238734,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/07\/thinking-of-seeking-transfer-of-petition-for-restitution-of-conjugal-rights-under-section-21-a2b-of-the-hindu-marriage-act-1955-sc-says-you-cant\/","url_meta":{"origin":339021,"position":3},"title":"Thinking of seeking transfer of petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 21-A(2)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? SC says you can&#8217;t","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"November 7, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In a case where the husband and wife both sought transfer of cases filed against by both of them against one another, the single judge bench of V. Ramasubramanian, J allowed the transfer petition filed by the wife and transferred the divorce case instituted by the husband in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":359445,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/09\/cannot-initiate-divorce-abroad-if-married-in-india-gujarat-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":339021,"position":4},"title":"Divorce proceedings cannot be initiated in Australia, if marriage has been solemnized in India: Gujarat High Court","author":"Editor","date":"September 9, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe husband had no right to initiate proceedings in the Australian courts by taking advantage of the fact that he had acquired Australian citizenship.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"initiate divorce abroad if married in India","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/initiate-divorce-abroad-if-married-in-India.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/initiate-divorce-abroad-if-married-in-India.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/initiate-divorce-abroad-if-married-in-India.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/initiate-divorce-abroad-if-married-in-India.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":244638,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/27\/malicious-allegations-against-spouse-costing-him-his-job-and-reputation-not-an-attempt-to-preserve-the-relationship-but-a-definite-case-of-mental-cruelty-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":339021,"position":5},"title":"Malicious allegations against spouse costing him his job and reputation not an attempt to preserve the relationship but a definite case of mental cruelty: Supreme Court","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"February 27, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cWhen the reputation of the spouse is sullied amongst his colleagues, his superiors and the society at large, it would be difficult to expect condonation of such conduct by the affected party.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/339021","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67517"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=339021"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/339021\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/339025"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=339021"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=339021"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=339021"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}