Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena vs. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ DineshKumar Mahato and Anr. 2025 INSC 55 (India)

Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena vs. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh  Kumar Mahato and Anr. 2025 INSC 55 (India) 

Criminal Appeal No. __ of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5896 of 2024) Supreme Court of India 

Decided on : 10 January 2025 

Bench : Justice Sanjay Kumar and CJI Sanjiv Khanna 

Facts of the Case: 

The Appellant, Reena, and respondent no. 1, Dinesh Kumar Mahato, were married on  01.05.2014. They got separated on august 2015, and Reena started living at her parental home.  Dinesh filed for a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of  conjugal rights on 20.07.2018, stating that Reena has left the matrimonial home on 21.08.2015  and did not return thereafter. He stated that his parents were very old and needed to be taken care  of by Reena and attempts were made during August and October, 2017, to bring her back but she  refused to come. 

Reena asserted in her written statement that she was subjected to torture and mental agony by  Dinesh, who demanded ₹5 lakh to purchase a four wheeler. She alleged that he had extramarital  relations. Further, she stated that she suffered a miscarriage and Dinesh was reluctant to take care  of her. Also, she and her relatives were ill treated by her in-laws. Additionally she put forth two  conditions that she should be allowed to use the washrooms/toilets inside the house and she also  demanded an LPG stove to prepare food. 

Despite filing a written statement, she later failed to appear before the Family Court of Ranchi.  No evidence was adduced by Reena. Court observed that Dinesh had sufficient means to provide  for Reena however he failed to do so. Court directed Dinesh to adhere to Reena’s conditions. The  Family court held in Dinesh’s favour and directed Reena to resume her conjugal life with Dinesh  within 2 months. 

Meanwhile, on 10.08.2018, Reena lodged a complaint under section 498A IPC against Dinesh .  As a result, he was sent to prison and was subsequently suspended from service for some time.  The case is stated to be pending. Thereafter, on 03.08.2019, Reena instituted Original  Maintenance Case against Dinesh seeking maintenance under section 125 of the Code of  Criminal Procedure. The petition was accordingly allowed and Dinesh was directed to pay  ₹10,000/- per month to Reena towards maintenance. 

Dinesh filed a Criminal Revision petition in 2022 before the Jharkhand High Court. The learned  Judge, however, noted that there was a specific finding in the judgment dated 23.04.2022 that  Reena had withdrawn from her husband’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. The learned Judge, therefore, reasoned  that Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. would come to Dinesh’s aid and, in consequence, Reena would not  be entitled to maintenance. Hence, the learned Judge allowed the revision.  

Issues: 

1. Whether a husband who secures a decree for restitution of conjugal rights is absolved from  paying maintenance under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. if the wife refuses to return to the matrimonial  home? 
2. Whether the findings in the restitution proceedings are binding upon the maintenance  proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.? 

Statutory Provisions: 

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Order for Maintenance of Wives, Children,  and Parents) and Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Restitution of Conjugal Rights). 

1. Section 125(1): if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife  or his legitimate or illegitimate children, falling in the prescribed categories, or his parents, who  are all unable to maintain themselves, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such  neglect or refusal, order such person to pay a monthly allowance, as thought fit, for their  maintenance. 
2. Section 125(4): “No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under  this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live  with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.” 
3. Section 9: “When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn  from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for  restitution of conjugal rights, and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made  in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may  decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly”. 

Precedents : 

1. Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316 

Court 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. It was held that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of  social justice, especially enacted to protect women and children, falling within the constitutional  sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution. Thus, the objective of the  provision, then and now, is to alleviate the financial plight of destitute wives, children and now,  parents, who are left to fend for themselves. 

2. Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015) 6 SCC 353 

Here, the Court ruled that a wife is entitled to live in dignity and not in “animal existence.” The  husband’s obligation to maintain his wife is absolute unless there is a legally recognized  disqualification. The judgment underscored that the concept of maintenance ensures the social  and economic security of a deserted wife. The same reasoning was used in Rina Kumari to stress  that a husband cannot take shelter under technicalities such as a restitution decree to deny his  wife sustenance. 

3. Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014) 1 SCC 188 

Court held that the provision of maintenance aims at empowering the destitute and achieving  social justice or equality and dignity of the individual and while dealing with cases thereunder,  the drift in the approach from adversarial litigation to social context adjudication is the need of  the hour. 

4. Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 

Court emphasized that maintenance laws were enacted as a measure of social justice to provide  recourse to dependent wives and children for their financial support, so as to prevent them from  falling into destitution and vagrancy. 

5. Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015) 5 SCC 705 

In Shamima Farooqui, the Supreme Court observed that the right to maintenance allows a wife to  live in a similar standard as she would have in her husband’s home. It also held that the  husband’s plea of financial incapacity is not an acceptable defence, as every able-bodied man is  presumed capable of earning. The Rina Kumari Bench used this precedent to highlight that  Dinesh, being employed with a stable income, could not evade his legal duty to maintain his wife. 

6. Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta (2002) 5 SCC 706 

This case elaborated on the concept of mental cruelty, stating that it is a state of mind that can  only be inferred from the cumulative conduct of the spouse. Isolated incidents are not decisive;  the court must look at the entire relationship. In Rina Kumari, this reasoning was applied to hold  that Dinesh’s neglect after his wife’s miscarriage and his denial of basic amenities constituted  mental cruelty, justifying her decision to stay away.

7. Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri (2000) 3 SCC 180 

In Rohtash Singh, the Court clarified that a woman who has been divorced on the ground of  desertion may still claim maintenance as a divorced wife under the Explanation (b) to Section  125(1) Cr.P.C. The Rina Kumari Court noted that Dinesh’s reliance on the restitution decree,  without seeking divorce, was an attempt to shield himself from maintenance obligations while  keeping the marriage technically alive. This showed lack of bona fides on his part. 

8. K.G. Premshankar v. Inspector of Police (2002) 8 SCC 87 

The Court in Premshankar explained that under Sections 40–43 of the Evidence Act, civil  judgments are relevant but not conclusive unless they fall under Section 41 (judgments in rem).  Rina Kumari applied this principle to hold that the restitution decree was merely a relevant piece  of evidence—not determinative of the wife’s right to maintenance. 

9. Smt. S.R. Ashwini v. G. Harish (2024 KHC 14466) No. 104 of 2018 

The Karnataka High Court held that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of  the Hindu Marriage Act does not automatically bar a wife’s claim for maintenance under Section  125 Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized that both provisions operate in different spheres—Section 9  deals with marital cohabitation, while Section 125 ensures social and financial protection. It  ruled that even after such a decree, the wife may still claim maintenance if she has sufficient  reason to live separately, such as cruelty, harassment, or denial of dignity. This precedent was  relied upon in Rina Kumari v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto (2025) to reaffirm that a restitution decree  cannot be used to deny a wife her right to maintenance. 

Judgment: 

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Jharkhand High Court’s judgment. The  Family Court’s order dated 15.02.2022 granting ₹10,000/month maintenance was restored.  Dinesh was directed to pay maintenance from the date of application (03.08.2019), and arrears to  be paid in three instalments by December 2025. 

Reasoning: 

∙ Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a social justice provision; its object is to prevent destitution, not to  punish. 

∙ A decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not automatically disqualify a wife from  maintenance; her conduct and the circumstances must be examined. 

∙ Rina’s reasons—dowry demands, denial of basic facilities, neglect after miscarriage, and  mental cruelty—constituted sufficient cause for her refusal to live with her husband. ∙ The High Court erred in relying solely on the restitution decree and ignoring evidence of  cruelty and dependency.

∙ The findings of the Family Court in civil proceedings are not conclusive in Section 125  Cr.P.C. proceedings since both are independent remedies. 

Significance: 

This judgment clarifies that: 

A restitution decree does not automatically bar maintenance under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. The  wife’s justification for living separately must be independently examined.The wife’s right to  maintenance depends on whether she had sufficient reason to live separately. Maintenance  proceedings are civil in nature and not bound by findings of the restitution decree. The ruling  strengthens the social welfare intent behind Section 125 Cr.P.C. and ensures protection of  women from destitution and cruelty. 

References: 

∙ SCC Online, “Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh  Kumar Mahato & Anr., 2025 INSC 55 (India),” available at: https://www.scconline.com  (last accessed 21 Oct. 2025). 

∙ Manupatra, “Commentary on Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 9 HMA – Maintenance  and Restitution,” available at: https://www.manupatrafast.com (last accessed 20 Oct.  2025). 

∙ Law Commission of India, 41st Report on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (24  September 1969). 

∙ HeinOnline, “Articles on Maintenance Laws and Matrimonial Remedies in India,”  available at: https://home.heinonline.org (last accessed 20 Oct. 2025).