'Consortium' Is A Fundamental Aspect Of Marriage: Kerala High Court Denies Maintenance To Wife Who Left Husband Without Sufficient Cause

The Court emphasized that right to each other's society, comfort and affection, commonly known as consortium is a fundamental aspect of marriage. It further stated that when either spouse withdraws from society of the other, it constitutes a withdrawal from the marital obligations.

Justice Kauser Edappagath observed, “The primary object of marriage, while varying across cultures and beliefs, often encompasses forming a legal and social unit providing companionship and emotional support apart from procreation and raising of children. Marriage brings with it specific rights and liabilities for both husband and wife. Marriage involves a commitment to live together and fulfil the responsibilities inherent in the marital relationship. The primary duty of parties in marriage is to live together and fulfil their marital obligations. The right to each other's society, comfort and affection, often referred to as 'consortium' is a fundamental aspect of marriage. Withdrawal from society of the other would mean withdrawal from marital obligation by either spouse.”

In the facts of the case, the petitioner-husband approached the Court challenging a maintenance order under Section 125 of CrPC by which he was ordered to provide maintenance to the respondent-wife. The husband submitted that his wife is not entitled to claim maintenance since she was living apart for no justifiable reasons.

The parties got married in 2008 and they have a girl child born out of the wedlock. The husband filed for divorce before the Family Court and they were granted divorce in 2017.

The petitioner submitted that his wife abandoned him and their minor daughter in the year 2015 for no sufficient reason. On the other hand, the respondent submitted that she was compelled to leave and live separately due to his ill treatment and is therefore entitled to claim maintenance.

The Court noted that the Family Court granted guardianship of the daughter to the petitioner since the wife abandoned them without sufficient reason. Relying upon the order of the Family Court, the High Court further noted that there is no evidence produced by the wife to show that she was ill treated by her husband. It took note of the fact that the wife has not made allegations of ill treatment before the police also.

The High Court thus stated that there is sufficient evidence to state that the wife left the company of the husband without sufficient reasons.

The Court stated husband has legal and moral duty to provide maintenance his wife. It further stated that this duty stems from the corresponding obligation of the wife to perform her marital obligations

The Court stated that a wife who decides to live separately on sufficient and valid grounds is entitled to claim maintenance. It stated that a wife who refuses to live with her husband and chooses to live separately without any just reason is not entitled for maintenance.

Court said, “A wife who chooses to live separately without sufficient reason is disentitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) of Cr.PC (Section 144 (4) of BNSS). It is crucial to assess whether the wife's decision to live separately is based on valid grounds. If valid grounds, such as cruelty or desertion, exist, she may still claim maintenance despite living apart.”

In the facts of the case, the Court found that respondent-wife is not entitled for maintenance since she was living separately without sufficient reason and has not shown any evidence of ill treatment by the husband.

Accordingly, the revision petition was allowed by setting aside the order of the maintenance issued by the Family Court.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates K Meera, Boby Mathew

Counsel for Respondents: Advocates Ajmal V A, A C Arfana, Fathima V A

Case No: RPFC NO. 207 OF 2020

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 191