A single judge of composite APHC held that deserted wife will not get any maintenance.

From Para 5,

5) POINT: As per Section 125 Cr.P.C, any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself, or his legitimate or illegitimate children whether married or not, or his father or mother, unable to maintain themselves is liable to provide maintenance to them. So far as wife is concerned, she will be entitled to maintenance only when her case does not fall under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C, which reads thus:
“(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.”
The Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Bai Patel v. Shyam Kumar Patel1, has clarified this aspect stating that wife’s right to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C can be denied only in the circumstances provided under sub-Section (4) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Trial Court refused to award maintenance to the 1st petitioner on the ground that the 1st petitioner has voluntarily come out of the matrimonial home but not due to the negligence or refusal of the respondent. Of course the Trial Court awarded maintenance @ Rs.1500/- per month to each of the two children of the 1st petitioner. Hence the instant Criminal Revision Case is filed seeking maintenance to 1st petitioner on one hand and enhancement of the maintenance awarded to the petitioners 2 and 3.

From Para 8,

8) So the facts and evidence would clearly depict that 1st petitioner’s residing away from her husband is not supported by any plausible ground. Her attitude gives an inference that without lawful excuse she remained with her parents. In this factual situation, the 1st petitioner is not entitled to maintenance as laid under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. The Trial Court has rightly refused to grant maintenance to her. The wife who lives separately from the society of her husband without any lawful excuse does not deserve maintenance. It was so held in the case of Anil v. Smt. Sunita4. The decisions in K.Anjaiah Goud’s case (2 supra) and Naredla Sirisha’s case (3 supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioners will not help the cause of 1st petitioner.

The Index is here.