From the facts stated by you, it appears that your husband may be attempting to strategically use the Section 9 HMA petition for restitution of conjugal rights in order to create a defence against the maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC/BNSS equivalent. However, merely filing or pursuing a Section 9 petition does not automatically defeat or waive your right to maintenance. Courts generally examine whether the offer to resume cohabitation is genuine, practical, bona fide, and in the welfare of the wife and children, or whether it is merely a litigation tactic to avoid maintenance liability.
In your case, several facts become legally important. You have stated that the maintenance proceedings have been pending for approximately 9 years and are now at the judgment stage, evidence and cross-examination have already concluded, and your husband has not properly disclosed salary documents or financial affidavits despite directions. In such circumstances, sudden aggressive pursuit of Section 9 dates may indeed be viewed by the Court as a tactical move. Further, where minor children aged about 11 years and 8 years are already settled near their school and maternal support system, the Court will ordinarily consider their welfare, stability, schooling, and practical circumstances before expecting the wife to shift residence.
If your husband now says that he is willing to keep you and the children in the matrimonial home, the Court will examine whether such offer is genuine and whether the environment is safe, stable, and suitable. The fact that he has simultaneously filed another case seeking removal of your name from the jointly held apartment materially weakens the bona fide nature of his conduct because on one hand he is allegedly offering cohabitation while on the other hand he is attempting to exclude you from property rights. This contradiction can be specifically pointed out before the Court. Moreover, if the original matrimonial house is situated far away from the children’s school and current support structure, you are legally entitled to raise concerns regarding inconvenience, welfare of children, financial insecurity, educational disruption, and absence of genuine intention on his part.
You should not casually stop appearing in the Section 9 proceedings because non-appearance may later be used adversely against you to argue that you deliberately refused cohabitation without sufficient reason. Instead, the safer legal strategy is generally to appear through counsel, contest the matter properly, place your apprehensions and factual circumstances on record, and demonstrate that your refusal, if any, is based upon reasonable grounds including prior conduct, insecurity, ongoing disputes, children’s welfare, residential uncertainty, and contradictory litigation conduct by your husband.
Importantly, even if a husband expresses willingness to resume cohabitation, maintenance under Section 125 is not automatically barred unless the Court concludes that the wife is intentionally refusing to live with the husband without sufficient reason. If there are genuine matrimonial disputes, emotional cruelty, instability, litigation harassment, lack of financial transparency, unsafe environment, or conduct inconsistent with bona fide reconciliation, maintenance may still continue. The welfare and educational continuity of the children also remain extremely important considerations.
You should also specifically bring to the notice of the maintenance Court that despite prolonged proceedings your husband has failed to fully disclose his income documents, salary details, and financial affidavits. Courts often draw adverse inference where income disclosure is intentionally withheld. Since your evidence and cross-examination are already complete and the matter is near judgment, the Section 125 case ordinarily should not automatically get stalled merely because Section 9 proceedings are pending elsewhere.
At this stage, your strongest approach would likely be to continue contesting both proceedings carefully, avoid giving the impression of deliberate non-cooperation, place all contradictory conduct of the husband on record, and emphasize the welfare of the children, residential stability, schooling concerns, financial insecurity, and his inconsistent litigation strategy regarding the jointly owned apartment.
