Understanding Restitution of Conjugal Rights and Maintenance Rights in India

Atul Singh
Aug 15, 2025
5 min read

Updated: Jan 24

The Legal Framework Surrounding Marriage Dissolution

When a marriage breaks down, various proceedings are initiated in different courts. One such remedy is the Restitution of Conjugal Rights (RCR). This legal provision is invoked when either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other. The aggrieved party may file a petition under the relevant provisions outlined below, seeking a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. This decree aims to compel the spouse to return to the marital union.

In these proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the individual who has withdrawn from the marital relationship. The proceedings can be initiated under the following legal frameworks:

Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs: Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Christians: Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869
Parsis: Section 36 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936
Muslims: A suit for restitution of conjugal rights

The Misuse of RCR Provisions

It is often observed that these provisions are not invoked with the genuine intent to reunite spouses. Instead, they are frequently employed as a legal strategy. The initial onus is on the spouse to prove that the separation is due to a reasonable excuse or ground. Moreover, non-compliance with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights can serve as a basis for seeking divorce in subsequent proceedings.

Additionally, these proceedings are sometimes utilized as a shield against maintenance claims under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023). Under Section 125 CrPC/Section 144 BNSS, a wife, minor children, adult children with disabilities, and dependent parents who lack sufficient means can approach the court for monthly maintenance from a person with adequate means who refuses or neglects to support them.

However, as per Section 125(4) CrPC, which is now Section 144(4) BNSS, a wife is not entitled to receive maintenance if she is living in adultery, refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. The RCR decree is expected to act as a safeguard, indicating that non-compliance will disqualify the wife from claiming maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC/Section 144(4) BNSS.

The Core Question

The pivotal question arises: If a court has ordered a wife to return to the marital home and she refuses to comply, does this automatically result in the loss of her right to maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC/Section 144(4) BNSS?

In most cases, proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights are filed with this foresight or strategy in mind.

Judicial Precedents on RCR and Maintenance

The Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in Hem Raj vs. Urmila Devi & Ors. (1997) 1 HLR 702 held that once a court finds, in a contested proceeding, that the wife had no just or reasonable cause to withdraw from her husband's society, she cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The court further noted that the wife had not presented any subsequent events or circumstances that justified her continued separation from her husband, despite the decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

Similarly, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Ravi Kumar vs. Santosh Kumari (1997) 3 RCR (Cri) 3 (DB) ruled that a wife against whom a decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been passed is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC unless the husband obtains an ex parte decree for restitution. The judgment also clarified that an RCR decree in favor of the husband does not automatically cancel any maintenance orders previously established. The husband must approach the Magistrate to have the maintenance order revoked.

In an earlier ruling titled Sampuran Singh vs. Gurdev Kaur & Anr (1985 Cri LJ 1072 P&H), the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court observed that a wife may still claim maintenance if she can demonstrate that her husband's conduct obstructs her from complying with the decree.

In K. Narayana Rao vs. Bhagyalakshmi (1983 SCC OnLine Kar 190), the Karnataka High Court noted that the court handling a maintenance claim under Section 125 CrPC would consider the non-compliance of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. However, the court is not bound by all findings in the RCR proceedings, including whether the wife withdrew from her husband's society, deserted him, or engaged in adulterous behavior.

Supreme Court Ruling on RCR and Maintenance

In January 2025, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while considering the aforementioned judgments and numerous other decisions rendered by various High Courts, ruled that an RCR decree does not automatically cancel a spouse’s right to maintenance under Section 125(4). The decree may be relevant for a fresh assessment by the concerned court regarding whether there is a “sufficient reason” for living apart, based on the evidence presented in that case. However, the RCR decree cannot be deemed binding on the court adjudicating maintenance under Section 125 CrPC/144 BNSS.

Consequently, if the wife has legitimate reasons for living separately—such as cruelty, neglect, unsafe conditions, or loss of dignity—the maintenance court is obligated to consider these factors rather than rely solely on the RCR decree.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Para 29 of its judgment dated 10.01.2025 in Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena Versus Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato & Anr (2025 INSC 55), stated:

29. Thus, the preponderance of judicial thought weighs in favour of upholding the wife’s right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The mere passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights at the husband’s behest and non-compliance therewith by the wife would not, by itself, be sufficient to attract the disqualification under Section 125(4) CrPC. 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. 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 125(4) CrPC.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there can be no mechanical application of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Its non-compliance does not automatically disqualify the wife from claiming maintenance under Section 125 (now Section 144) if she possesses sufficient and bona fide reasons for refusing compliance. The legal landscape surrounding restitution of conjugal rights and maintenance is complex, and each case must be evaluated on its individual merits.