Section 125(4) CrPC: A very Rare Defence That Can Protect a Husband from Paying Maintenance

Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is rarely used effectively in maintenance proceedings. Husbands frequently argue that the wife left the matrimonial home without any sufficient reason, but courts seldom deny maintenance solely on this ground.

A recent Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment shows how Section 125(4) can operate when the husband supports his defence with clear facts and previous judicial findings.

Section 125(4) states that a wife is not entitled to maintenance if:

• she is living in adultery;
• she refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason; or
• the husband and wife are living separately by mutual consent.

The corresponding provision under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita is Section 144(4).

The central question is simple:

Can a wife claim maintenance when she leaves her husband without proving any reasonable or sufficient cause?

The Madhya Pradesh High Court answered this question in the negative.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment

In Lokesh v. Smt. Annapurna and Others, Criminal Revision No. 1229 of 2022, decided on 8 July 2026, the Madhya Pradesh High Court examined whether the wife had sufficient reason to live separately from her husband.

The Family Court had awarded total maintenance of ₹20,000 per month:

• ₹10,000 per month to the wife;
• ₹5,000 per month to the first child; and
• ₹5,000 per month to the second child.

The husband challenged the order before the High Court. He argued that the wife had left him without any justifiable reason and was therefore disqualified from receiving maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC.

Why did the wife leave the matrimonial home?

The wife alleged that the husband and his family members treated her with cruelty. She also alleged that the husband had an extramarital relationship.

Another major grievance raised by the wife was that the husband gave more attention to his parents and relatives than to her and the children.

She wanted the husband to live separately from his parents and family members.

The husband denied these allegations. He argued that he had never neglected his wife or children. He maintained that the wife had voluntarily left his company and failed to establish any reasonable cause for living separately.

Criminal proceedings ended in acquittal and discharge

The wife had also initiated criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC against the husband and his relatives.

The husband’s relatives were discharged or acquitted. The husband himself was also acquitted in the criminal case.

The High Court considered these outcomes along with the findings recorded in connected matrimonial proceedings.

The earlier proceedings showed that the wife had failed to prove her allegations of cruelty and an illicit relationship. There were also findings that she had deserted the husband without reasonable cause and had made unsupported allegations against him.

This evidence weakened the wife’s claim that she had been compelled to leave the matrimonial home because of cruelty.

Husband’s attachment to his parents is not sufficient reason to live separately

The wife also argued that the husband was more inclined towards his parents and relatives.

The High Court rejected this as a sufficient reason for living separately.

A husband does not commit cruelty merely because he cares for his parents. A wife cannot ordinarily insist that the husband must reduce or sever his relationship with his parents as a condition for continuing the marriage.

Disagreements with in-laws, lack of adjustment or dissatisfaction with the husband’s attachment to his family cannot automatically justify leaving the matrimonial home.

The Court found that the wife had failed to prove any legally sufficient reason for refusing to live with the husband.

The bar contained in Section 125(4) therefore applied to her.

Wife’s maintenance denied but children’s maintenance increased

The High Court set aside the maintenance of ₹10,000 per month awarded to the wife.

However, the Court did not disturb the independent right of the children to receive maintenance.

Instead, it increased the maintenance of each child from ₹5,000 to ₹7,500 per month.

The husband was therefore directed to pay:

• ₹7,500 per month to the first child; and
• ₹7,500 per month to the second child.

The total maintenance payable for the two children became ₹15,000 per month.

This distinction is important. Even if the wife becomes disqualified from receiving maintenance because of her conduct, the children do not lose their independent right to financial support from their father.

Why is Section 125(4) rarely successful?

In many maintenance cases, husbands argue that the wife left the matrimonial home voluntarily. However, they fail to place sufficient evidence before the court.

A bare statement that “my wife left without reason” is not enough.

The husband must show through documents, previous orders, cross-examination and conduct that:

• he was willing to reside with and maintain the wife;
• he made genuine efforts to bring her back;
• the wife refused to return without sufficient cause;
• the allegations of cruelty were not proved;
• the wife imposed unreasonable conditions for cohabitation; or
• previous courts recorded findings against the wife’s allegations.

Section 125 proceedings are summary in nature. At the interim stage, the court may not conduct a detailed trial regarding every allegation of cruelty.

This creates a practical difficulty for the husband. When a Section 498A case or matrimonial case is still pending, the husband may continue to argue that the cruelty allegations are false, but there may be no final judicial finding in his favour.

In Lokesh v. Smt. Annapurna, the husband had the advantage of acquittal, discharge and findings from connected matrimonial proceedings. These findings gave the High Court a stronger basis to conclude that the wife lacked sufficient reason to live separately.

Does acquittal in a Section 498A case automatically stop maintenance?

No.

An acquittal under Section 498A does not automatically disentitle the wife from claiming maintenance.

A criminal court decides whether the prosecution proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. A maintenance court examines whether the wife had sufficient reason to live separately, generally on the standard of preponderance of probabilities.

Therefore, a wife may be acquitted of making a false criminal case, or the husband may be acquitted because of lack of sufficient criminal evidence, while the maintenance court may still find that the wife had a reasonable cause to live separately.

The husband must therefore establish more than a simple acquittal.

In the present case, the High Court considered the combined effect of:

• the husband’s acquittal;
• the discharge or acquittal of his relatives;
• findings in previous matrimonial proceedings;
• the failure of the wife to prove cruelty;
• unsupported allegations of an extramarital relationship; and
• the absence of any other sufficient reason for living separately.

Practical strategy for husbands relying on Section 125(4)

A husband seeking protection under Section 125(4) should build the defence from the beginning of the case.

He should place the following material before the court wherever available:

• messages asking the wife to return;
• legal notices offering cohabitation;
• mediation and counselling records;
• evidence of attempts to provide a separate residence;
• admissions made by the wife during cross-examination;
• acquittal or discharge orders;
• divorce, restitution or judicial separation judgments;
• evidence showing unreasonable demands for separation from parents; and
• proof that the husband continued to support the children.

The husband must show that the wife made a conscious choice to live separately and that no cruelty, danger or other sufficient cause justified that decision.

Conclusion

Section 125(4) is one of the most underused defences in maintenance proceedings.

Courts do not deny maintenance merely because the husband alleges that the wife left voluntarily. The husband must prove that the wife refused to live with him without sufficient reason.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment in Lokesh v. Smt. Annapurna demonstrates how this defence can succeed when the husband supports it with acquittal orders, findings from previous proceedings and evidence contradicting the wife’s allegations.

The judgment also protects the distinction between the rights of the wife and the rights of the children.

The wife lost her maintenance because she failed to justify living separately. The children, however, retained their independent right to maintenance, and the Court increased the amount payable to them.

The central lesson is clear:

Section 125(4) is not merely a technical provision. When properly pleaded and proved, it can protect a husband from paying maintenance to a wife who leaves the matrimonial home without sufficient reason.