Wife Who Left Matrimonial Home During COVID Without Proving Cruelty Not Entitled to Maintenance, Rules Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a wife's revision petition challenging the Family Court's refusal of maintenance, holding she left her matrimonial home without reasonable cause and failed to establish neglect or cruelty by her husband.

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, in a revision petition arising from a maintenance dispute between a Mysuru couple married since 1995, has dismissed a wife's challenge to the partial order of the II Additional Principal Family Judge, Mysuru. Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha, sitting singly, upheld the Family Court's finding that the wife left the matrimonial home in 2021 without reasonable cause and produced no substantive proof of cruelty or harassment. The court held that leaving matrimonial home without justification is a disqualification to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The petitioner, Mrs. K. R. Roopa, wife of Mr. B. M. Murlidar, along with her elder daughter Ms. B. M. Shivani and younger daughter Ms. B. M. Himani, had filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court in Mysuru in Crl.Misc.No.390/2022. The Family Court, by its order dated 29 November 2023, partly allowed the petition. It directed the respondent husband to pay the younger daughter Ms. B. M. Himani a sum of Rs. 8,000 per month towards maintenance till her marriage or till she secures a suitable job. The respondent was also directed to bear the entire educational expenses of the younger daughter till she completes her education.

The claims of the wife and the elder daughter were, however, rejected entirely. Aggrieved by that rejection, the wife filed Revision Petition No. 133 of 2024 before the Karnataka High Court under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act.

Competing Versions on Why the Wife Left

Counsel for the petitioner-wife argued that she was constrained to leave the matrimonial home due to the harassment and cruelty of her husband. She contended that sufficient evidence had been placed before the Family Court to show that the circumstances at the matrimonial home drove her to leave, and that the Family Court erred in discarding that evidence.

Counsel for the respondent-husband offered a different account. He submitted that the couple married in 1995 and lived together without disturbance for more than 25 years until 2021. The husband, he said, had attended to every necessity of the wife and children, and had even taken a loan to purchase a house site in the name of the wife. In 2021, during the COVID-19 period, the wife left the matrimonial home to care for her parents and sister, who had contracted COVID, and her father who had suffered a heart attack. She did not return despite repeated requests. When the husband went to her parents' house asking her to come back, the wife instead gave a police complaint. The respondent's case was that she left without reasonable cause, attracting the disqualification under Section 125 CrPC, and that the revision petition deserved to be dismissed.

What the Family Court Records Showed

The High Court examined the translated copy of the impugned Family Court order. The genuineness of that translated copy was not disputed by the respondent's counsel. Certain material facts emerged as undisputed on the record before both courts.

The couple had lived together for approximately 25 years. The respondent established that he purchased a house site in the petitioner's name by taking a loan. The elder daughter had completed her education and was working in Bengaluru, with the respondent having taken care of her educational expenses. The respondent had also secured admission for the younger daughter at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Mysuru.

Regarding the wife's allegations of harassment and cruelty, the High Court noted that no substantive proof was placed before the Family Court. The Family Court had recorded, at paragraph 14 of its order, that exhibit Ex.R1 — a complaint — showed the wife had gone to her maternal home to care for her parents and sister who had contracted COVID and to attend to her father's heart attack. That record made it impossible, in the Family Court's assessment, to attribute her departure to any attitude or conduct of the husband.

Exhibit Ex.R3, a statement given by the wife to the police, itself showed that the husband had approached her parents' house asking her to return to the matrimonial home. On those facts, the Family Court concluded that the wife had refused to live with the respondent without reasonable cause.

The Legal Framework Applied

Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha set out the governing legal position on maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, which corresponds to Section 144 of the BNSS. The court observed that the primary object of these provisions is social justice — to prevent exploitation, protect the vulnerable, and uphold human dignity. However, the court was clear that the grant of maintenance is not automatic.

A wife seeking maintenance must meet three requirements: her husband must have neglected or refused to maintain her; she must be unable to maintain herself; and her husband must have sufficient means. The court also identified that when a wife fails to meet these statutory requirements, or her case attracts a disqualification, the claim is liable to be rejected. Leaving the matrimonial home without justification and without reasonable cause is, the court stated, certainly a disqualification to seek maintenance.

The High Court's Reasoning

Applying these principles, the court found that neither refusal nor neglect by the husband had been established on the facts. The petitioner-wife had not demonstrated that there was a reasonable cause for her withdrawal from the society of the respondent. The court found the Family Court's analysis on this point to be sound.

The High Court declined to interfere with the findings returned by the Family Court, stating that it found no grounds to set those findings aside. The court held that the revision petition lacked merits.

Outcome

Revision Petition Family Court No. 133 of 2024 was dismissed. The order of the II Additional Principal Family Judge, Mysuru, dated 29 November 2023 — rejecting the wife's and elder daughter's maintenance claims while directing payment of Rs. 8,000 per month to the younger daughter along with her educational expenses — stands confirmed.