The Court drew a clear distinction between a “refusal” to live with the husband and mere non-compliance with a restitution decree. (AI image)

On 10th January 2025, the Supreme Court, in a historic ruling, reaffirmed the social-welfare character of maintenance laws and held that a husband cannot evade his maintenance obligation under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure merely by obtaining a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, even if the wife does not return to the matrimonial home thereafter.The Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was called upon to examine whether the grant of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, and the wife’s failure to comply with it, would automatically absolve the husband of his liability to pay maintenance under Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.Answering this question in the negative, the Court clarified that a wife’s non-compliance with such a decree does not, by itself, disentitle her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The Court further observed that provision is not punitive in nature, but protective.The Court drew a clear distinction between a “refusal” to live with the husband and mere non-compliance with a restitution decree, emphasizing that Section 125(4) CrPC is attracted only where the wife refuses to cohabit without sufficient cause. It held that failure to return to the matrimonial home, by itself, cannot be equated with such refusal, particularly where the circumstances justify the wife’s decision to live separately.Elaborating on this position, the Court observed that:“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) Cr.P.C.”.Facts of the case:The appellant, Rina and the respondent No. 1 i.e., Dinesh Kumar Mahto, got married on 01.05.2014, but parted ways in August, 2015, following harassment, dowry demands and ill-treatment after which the wife started staying at her parental home.Dinesh (husband) subsequently instituted a suit seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Family Court at Ranchi. The said suit was decreed in his favor on 23.04.2022, directing Rina (wife) to resume conjugal life with him within two months. Rina, however, did not comply with the decree.Meanwhile, Rina had filed a maintenance application against Dinesh under Section 125 CrPC before the family court at Dhanbad. The Ld. Principal Judge of the Family Court, Dhanbad, on 15.02.2022, allowed the application and directed Dinesh to pay a Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance, noting that she had no independent income and that the husband, a government employee, had sufficient means.Challenging this order, Dinesh approached the Jharkhand High Court by way of Criminal Revision, whereby, on 04.09.2023, Ld. Single Judge of the High Court allowed the revision and set aside the maintenance awarded to Rina, placing reliance on the Family Court’s judgment dated 23.04.2022 in the restitution proceedings. The High Court held that Rina had withdrawn from the society of her husband without reasonable cause and had failed to return to the matrimonial home despite the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Since, the decree had not been challenged by her, the High Court concluded that the bar under Section 125(4) CrPC was attracted and denied her claim for maintenance.Aggrieved by the decision dated 04.09.2023 of the Jharkhand High Court, Rina approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The central question before the Supreme Court was whether a wife’s failure to cohabit with her husband and comply with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, without sufficient reason, by itself attracts the disqualification under Section 125(4) CrPC, denying her maintenance.Setting aside the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had gravely erred in denying Rina the maintenance granted by the Family Court. Relying on its earlier decisions in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse and Rajnesh v. Neha, the Court reiterated that Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice intended to prevent agony, destitution and vagrancy. The Court further underscored that maintenance proceedings are not punitive in nature but are meant to ensure that a deserted or dependent wife is able to live with dignity.The Court further observed that the 125 CrPC must be interpreted liberally to give effect to legislative intent, as held in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat and Another. It clarified that the mere existence of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not automatically bind a court adjudicating a maintenance claim, nor such a decree, by itself, cannot be used against the wife to deny maintenance or to attract the disqualification under Section w125(4) CrPC.While arriving at its decision the Court examined the husband’s conduct, including his failure to support his wife after she suffered a miscarriage and the ill-treatment she faced in the matrimonial home. The Court found that these factors justified the wife’s continued separation. It further noted that even after securing the restitution decree, the husband made no effort to execute it or to seek divorce on the ground of non-compliance. Further, the Court also took notice of the fact that Rina was fully dependent on her brother.Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment dated 04.09.2023 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand and restored the Family Court’s order dated 15.02.2022 granting maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month, payable from the date of the maintenance application and directed the Respondent No.1 (husband) to clear the arrears within specified timelines.Appearance:For Petitioner(s) Ms. Mohini Priya, AOR Ms. Sayesha Gambhir, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Anup Kumar, AOR Ms. Pragya Choudhary, Adv. Mrs. Neha Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Shivam Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shruti Singh, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Prasad Deo, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Standing Counsel, Adv. Ms. Madhusmita Bora, AOR Mr. Shiv Ram Sharma, Adv. Mr. Pawan Kishore Singh, Adv. Mr. Dipankar Singh, Adv. Mrs. Anupama Sharma, Adv.Citation: (2025) 3 SCC 33 Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena Versus Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato and another(Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)

Najmul Hossain Shanto (ANI Photo)

NEW DELHI: Amid growing uncertainty over Bangladesh’s participation in the 2026 T20 World Cup, star batter Najmul Hossain Shanto has made it clear that the players want to feature in the ICC showpiece, even as the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) remains firm on its refusal to play matches in India. Shanto’s comments on Tuesday came a day before the ICC Board is set to meet and take a final call on the impasse.Go Beyond The Boundary with our YouTube channel. SUBSCRIBE NOW!Speaking to the media, Shanto said there had been no formal discussion within the Cricket Welfare Association of Bangladesh (CWAB) on the issue, but stressed that the desire among players to play the World Cup is unanimous.

“There wasn’t really an opportunity to talk about it,” Shanto said. “Those of us involved with CWAB have been very busy with matches. On top of that, something happened recently which affected the players mentally. It was a very tough time.”Underlining the magnitude of the tournament, Shanto described the World Cup as an opportunity that players cannot take lightly. “As cricketers, we always want to play. And when it’s an event like the World Cup, of course we want to be there. These tournaments don’t come often,” he said. “World Cups are rare. I see it as a big opportunity for us to play good cricket.”

While reiterating that the final call lies with the board, Shanto admitted the players have been kept largely in the dark. “I don’t really know what is happening internally, so it’s difficult for me to comment. But as players, we definitely want to play,” he said, adding that if the issues are resolved, “Inshallah it will be very good for the players to take part in the World Cup.”Earlier, Bangladesh T20 captain Litton Das echoed similar concerns, saying players had not been consulted or informed about the decision to not travel to India. “No, consent was not taken,” Litton said, adding that there had been no communication from the board.Bangladesh, backed by its government, has refused to play its group-stage matches in India citing security concerns and has asked the ICC to move the games to co-hosts Sri Lanka. Talks between the ICC and BCB, including a meeting in Dhaka last weekend, have failed to break the deadlock.According to an ESPNcricinfo report, the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) has written to the ICC supporting Bangladesh’s stance, citing political instability in the region, and has copied all ICC Board members on the correspondence. The ICC, however, has so far insisted that the tournament be held as scheduled.With the T20 World Cup set to begin on February 7 and Bangladesh’s four group matches slated for Kolkata and Mumbai, the ICC Board’s meeting on Wednesday is expected to be decisive.

You don’t have permission to access “http://www.ndtv.com/mumbai-news/thane-man-loses-leg-after-robber-snatches-phone-pushes-him-off-moving-local-train-10797181” on this server.

Reference #18.adf5d217.1768982581.d4a6072

https://errors.edgesuite.net/18.adf5d217.1768982581.d4a6072

(L-R) Setev Waugh, Abhishek Bachchan and Jamie Dwyer

New Delhi: As cricket edges closer to its return to the Olympic stage, a new league in Europe is positioning itself as a catalyst for change. The European T20 Premier League (ETPL) is not just another franchise tournament in an already crowded calendar; it is an attempt to address one of the game’s longest-standing imbalances: exposure and opportunity for European countries.The timing, however, could not be more apt. With T20 cricket set to feature at the Olympics, Europe, home to nearly one-third of ICC member nations, suddenly finds itself at the centre of cricket’s global growth strategy. ETPL aims to leverage that moment by offering elite-level competition across Scotland, the Netherlands and Ireland — markets traditionally underexposed despite their deepening cricket culture.Go Beyond The Boundary with our YouTube channel. SUBSCRIBE NOW!“I think the timing is perfect,” former Australia captain and two-time World Cup winner Steve Waugh tells TimesofIndia.com.“The spotlight hasn’t been on the countries in Europe, even though one-third of the ICC playing countries are from Europe. So 30 countries are playing here in Europe. This is a huge opportunity for them to break out and to make a name for themselves. For the players of those countries to play alongside legends of the game, our franchise, the Amsterdam Flames, players from Netherlands and other countries who have played alongside Mitchell Marsh, Steve Smith and others. I mean, that’s invaluable,” he says.

ETPL owners and investors at the Sydney Opera House and Harbour Bridge

“The Olympics are on the horizon for countries in Europe going forward. They have a realistic chance of doing very well. It has been underutilised, underdeveloped and underexposed for a lot of years. And this really puts a spotlight on cricket in Europe. It’s really taken the global game to Europe to showcase the talents of the players in Europe, but also the players from the rest of the world,” adds Waugh.ETPL is officially sanctioned by the International Cricket Council (ICC) and partners with Cricket Ireland, Cricket Scotland and the Royal Dutch Cricket Association. The three franchises already sold are based in Amsterdam, Belfast and Edinburgh, while the remaining three, once sold, will be based in Dublin, Rotterdam and Glasgow. The league is scheduled to be played in the last week of August 2026.Kyle Mills, co-owner of the Edinburgh franchise, echoes Waugh’s sentiments and revealed their marquee player and why ETPL is targeting the Indian audience.“Without question, some of the biggest names in the game are wanting to play in this competition. The people involved, they have integrity. That’s really important, not just from an owner’s perspective and investor’s perspective, but the players know the people who are involved and they all have great integrity.“We have Edinburgh Castle Robbers. Our marquee player is Mitchell Santner, one of the world’s best players and captain of the New Zealand side. Across the world, across all franchises, he’s desperate to be involved in this league.

The six-team European T20 Premier League (ETPL) will run out of Ireland, Scotland and the Netherlands and will start in the late week of August.

“We’re going into Scotland, the Netherlands and Ireland, with the best players in the world interacting with associate players. So the development of the game in those regions is the real crown and the jewels of the competition, to be honest. Cricket is a growing sport in that continent. It’s going to be in the Olympics. We have this league at the Olympics next month. So the opportunity for some of the best players in the world to interact with the emerging markets is the pure beauty of the competition,” says Mills.“It’s obviously being broadcast live in India at a prime time of 7pm. It’s being played on a European continent and we’ve got close ties from our franchise to New Zealand, and Steve Waugh’s franchise to Australia. So in essence, it’s going to be a true global competition,” he says.For Abhishek Bachchan, the brainchild behind the ETPL, he shares when he first came up with the idea.“About two years ago is when we started discussing bringing T20 cricket to Europe and ETPL kind of took wings. It’s been something that we’ve been working very hard on and we’re happy because I think we have finally reached the start line with the announcements that we’re going to make today. It’s been in the making for the last two to three years,” he said.When coaxed about whether entering a T20 league was always part of his long-term plan, given his investments as a co-owner in other sports, Bachchan said:“I wouldn’t say it was in the pipeline, it was definitely a desire. Being a cricket fan, you want to do something with cricket. But I’ve said this several times: Three years ago, the family got involved with the ISPL, which is the Indian Street Premier League, which is gully cricket. That was my first foray into trying to see, okay, can I do something with cricket? And it was very rewarding and encouraging and that gave me the impetus and the confidence to get into mainstream cricket. ETPL came about and we’ve been working on it now. But then again, it’s for a market where we feel we can make a difference. We can contribute something, which is Europe. And that’s what excites me,” he adds.Bachchan is careful to distinguish ETPL from ventures driven purely by commercial ambition. “Being a cricket fan, you want to do something with cricket,” he explained. “But one of my wants when I get involved in sport is: can I help? Can I help improve the infrastructure, the ecosystem, or just make a difference?”That question, he believes, had no easy answer in India. “The BCCI does a wonderful job with cricket in India. There is very little I felt I could have contributed to the sport there,” he said. The breakthrough came through involvement in the Indian Street Premier League (ISPL), which offered a first-hand understanding of cricket development beyond the traditional elite pathways. “That gave me the impetus and the confidence to get into mainstream cricket.”Europe, Bachchan felt, was where meaningful impact was possible. “ETPL came about for a market where we feel we can make a difference. We can contribute something, and that’s Europe. That’s what excites me.”

Know more about the league

The Amsterdam franchise will be owned by a consortium led by Australian great Steve Waugh, former World Cup-winning captain, alongside Jamie Dwyer, five-time hockey World Player of the Year and Olympic gold medallist, and Tim Thomas, former CEO of the Centre for Australia-India Relations and a former partner at KPMG Australia.The Edinburgh franchise will be owned by former New Zealand internationals Nathan McCullum, now a high-performance cricket coach, and Kyle Mills, the former New Zealand fast bowler and former ICC No.1 ODI bowler.The Belfast franchise will be owned by Australian all-rounder Glenn Maxwell, one of the world’s leading T20 stars, together with former NRMA Group CEO Rohan Lund, with additional strategic partners to be announced.

The stage is set for an electrifying five-match T20I series as India welcomes New Zealand to the Vidarbha Cricket Association (VCA) Stadium in Nagpur. With the 2026 T20 World Cup just weeks away, this series serves as a critical final rehearsal for both teams to lock in their tactical combinations and player roles.

India enter the T20I leg looking for redemption after a 1-2 defeat in the recently concluded ODI series. Under the leadership of Suryakumar Yadav, India’s T20 side has been a powerhouse, but all eyes will be on the captain himself, who is seeking to snap out of a rare lean patch with the bat. The return of Hardik Pandya and Jasprit Bumrah provides much-needed balance and firepower to a squad missing Tilak Varma and Washington Sundar due to injuries.

New Zealand, captained by Mitchell Santner, arrives with high morale after historic wins in the longer formats on this tour. The Kiwis have a well-rounded unit featuring explosive hitters like Finn Allen and versatile all-rounders like Rachin Ravindra. While they face the absence of Michael Bracewell and Adam Milne (niggles), their ability to adapt to Indian conditions makes them a formidable threat.

IND vs NZ 1st T20I: Probable Playing XI

India: Abhishek Sharma, Sanju Samson (wk), Suryakumar Yadav (c), Ishan Kishan, Hardik Pandya, Rinku Singh, Axar Patel, Varun Chakravarthy, Ravi Bishnoi, Jasprit Bumrah, Arshdeep Singh

New Zealand: Finn Allen, Devon Conway (wk), Rachin Ravindra, Daryl Mitchell, Glenn Phillips, Mark Chapman, Mitchell Santner (c), Michael Bracewell, Lockie Ferguson, Ish Sodhi, Ben Lister

Also READ: 3 key reasons behind India’s defeat in the ODI series against New Zealand

Vidarbha Cricket Association Stadium Pitch Report

Nagpur has traditionally been known as a slow and low surface that offers assistance to spinners and pace bowlers who rely on cutters and variations rather than raw speed. Batting can be challenging early on, with timing not always coming easily. However, with heavy dew expected to settle in during the second innings, conditions are likely to ease out significantly, making stroke play smoother. As a result, the captain winning the toss is expected to opt for bowling first to exploit the tougher initial conditions and take advantage of more favourable chasing conditions later in the game.

Vidarbha Cricket Association Stadium Stats and Records

• Total matches: 12
• Matches won batting first: 8
• Matches won bowling first: 4
• Average 1st innings score: 146
• Average 2nd innings score: 125
• Highest total recorded: 215/5 (20 Ovs) By Sri Lanka vs India
• Lowest total recorded: 79/10 (18.1 Ovs) By India vs New Zealand
• Highest score chased: 123/7 (19.4 Ovs) By West Indies vs South Africa
• Lowest score defended: 123/7 (20 Ovs) By Afghanistan vs West Indies

Also READ: Is the end of road for Ravindra Jadeja in ODIs? A deep dive into his fading fortunes

Bangladesh are scheduled to play three matches in Kolkata and one in Mumbai.

NEW DELHI: The Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB), on Tuesday, has formally written to the International Cricket Council (ICC) expressing its support for Bangladesh’s refusal to play matches in India at the 2026 Men’s T20 World Cup. The development comes a day before the ICC Board is set to meet on Wednesday to take a final call on Bangladesh’s participation in the tournament.Go Beyond The Boundary with our YouTube channel. SUBSCRIBE NOW!According to an ESPNcricinfo report, the PCB’s communication to the ICC also copied members of the ICC Board, underlining Pakistan’s alignment with the Bangladesh Cricket Board’s (BCB) stance amid what it termed political and security concerns in the region. Bangladesh, backed by its government, has asked for its group-stage matches to be shifted to Sri Lanka, co-hosts of the tournament.

The report further indicated that the governing body has so far remained firm on its position. The ICC has repeatedly conveyed to the BCB that the tournament schedule will not be altered and that Bangladesh are expected to play their matches in India as originally planned.Despite multiple rounds of discussions between the ICC and BCB, neither side has softened its stance. While the ICC has insisted that logistical and security assessments do not warrant a venue change, the BCB has maintained that it cannot send the team to India under the current circumstances. January 21 had been set as the deadline for a final decision, with the tournament scheduled to start on February 7.

The PCB’s late intervention follows days of speculation about its role in resolving the impasse. Unverified reports suggested that Pakistan had offered to host Bangladesh’s matches, while others claimed the PCB was even reassessing Pakistan’s own participation depending on how the situation unfolded. The standoff traces back to the BCCI’s decision to ask IPL franchise Kolkata Knight Riders to remove Bangladesh pacer Mustafizur Rahman from their IPL 2026 squad — a move that was never fully explained but widely linked to deteriorating political ties. That episode prompted the Bangladesh government to formally state that the national team would not travel to India for the World Cup.The fallout has since escalated, triggering unrest within Bangladesh cricket, including a brief player boycott during the BPL after controversial remarks by a senior BCB official.

Teams of Bangladesh and Pakistan (AP Photos)

NEW DELHI: Speculation around the ICC Men’s T20 World Cup 2026 has increased after reports claimed the Pakistan Cricket Board had stopped its preparations in support of Bangladesh. However, former Pakistan cricketers have dismissed these reports, calling them unrealistic and premature.Former wicketkeeper Kamran Akmal questioned the logic behind the claims.

Speaking on the Game Plan Show, he said, “I don’t think any cricket board would do this. I don’t think one team will also refuse to play just to show solidarity with another team. It makes no sense for us to join another team who are protesting? Can we handle the issue? It’s a sensitive issue.” Akmal stressed that there has been no official communication from the PCB or the government so far. “There is no official statement given. We should only react if the PCB or the government puts an official version out in the public domain,” he added.Former batter Basit Ali shared a similar view. He said the final decision will depend on the Pakistani government, not former players or media reports. Basit also pointed out that Pakistan pulling out of the tournament would be extremely unlikely, mainly because broadcasters would not support such a move. The India–Pakistan match, he noted, is one of the biggest revenue generators in world cricket.The reports originated after Pakistan publicly supported Bangladesh’s demand to shift its World Cup matches out of India due to security concerns. According to Geo News, discussions took place between officials from Dhaka and Islamabad, with PCB chairman Mohsin Naqvi involved in the talks. Sources claimed Pakistan could review its participation if Bangladesh’s concerns remain unresolved.The situation began after franchise Kolkata Knight Riders released Bangladesh pacer Mustafizur Rahman from IPL 2026. Since then, talks between the ICC and the BCB have failed to reach a solution. Bangladesh has refused to play its scheduled matches in Kolkata and Mumbai and has asked for a venue or group change to allow games in Sri Lanka.While Bangladesh insists India is unsafe, the ICC’s risk assessment has found no direct threat.