The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a husband's revision petition challenging a Family Court order awarding Rs 4,000 per month maintenance to his divorced wife, affirming that a divorced woman's right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC subsists until remarriage and cannot be defeated by the husband's pleas of financial hardship or the divorce decree itself.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner-husband, Surjeet, invoked the revisional jurisdiction under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, assailing the order dated 23.01.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hamirpur, in Case Registration No. 109 of 2019. The impugned order awarded maintenance of Rs 4,000 per month to the respondent-wife, Savitri Devi, from the date of filing the petition on 18.05.2019, in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Key Facts
- The parties were married on 21.12.1997 and three children were born of the wedlock.
- The respondent-wife alleged that the petitioner-husband started misbehaving, maltreating, and abusing her, denying basic needs, and she was shunted out of the matrimonial home in 2009.
- Due to physical and mental cruelty, the respondent-wife filed HMA Petition No. 119 of 2019 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act on 14.05.2019 before the Family Court, Hamirpur.
- The respondent-wife filed the Section 125 CrPC petition (Case Registration No. 109 of 2019) on 18.05.2019, claiming the petitioner-husband was a contractor earning Rs 30,000 per month and seeking maintenance of Rs 5,000 per month.
- The petitioner-husband opposed the claim, asserting he was a casual labourer unable to maintain his wife, and that the respondent-wife was a tailor earning handsomely.
- The Family Court framed issues on 07.05.2022.
- An interim maintenance order was passed on 13.09.2022 on the wife's application.
- The respondent-wife examined herself as sole prosecution witness on 07.12.2022.
- The petitioner-husband examined three witnesses, including himself, on 28.08.2023 and 29.11.2023.
- Based on a State Government notification fixing minimum wages for a casual labourer at Rs 375 per day, the Family Court determined the petitioner-husband's monthly income at Rs 11,250 and awarded maintenance of Rs 4,000 per month on 23.01.2024.
- A decree of divorce was passed in HMA No. 119 of 2019 on 22.11.2021, with specific findings that acts of cruelty forced the respondent-wife to leave the matrimonial home.
Procedural History
- 18.05.2019: Section 125 CrPC petition filed (Case Registration No. 109 of 2019).
- 14.05.2019: Divorce petition filed (HMA No. 119 of 2019).
- 07.05.2022: Issues framed by Family Court.
- 13.09.2022: Interim maintenance order passed.
- 07.12.2022: Respondent-wife examined as PW-1.
- 28.08.2023 & 29.11.2023: Petitioner-husband's evidence recorded.
- 22.11.2021: Decree of divorce passed in HMA No. 119 of 2019.
- 23.01.2024: Impugned final maintenance order passed.
- 17.07.2024: Stay granted by coordinate bench in Cr.MP(M) No. 1464 of 2024.
- 11.11.2025: High Court requisitioned records of both proceedings.
- 26.08.2025: Parties directed to file affidavits of assets and liabilities.
- 06.07.2026: Arguments reserved.
- 10.08.2026: Judgment pronounced.
Relief Sought
The petitioner-husband sought quashing and setting aside of the impugned order dated 23.01.2024 awarding maintenance of Rs 4,000 per month to the respondent-wife from 18.05.2019.
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (1) Whether a divorced wife who has not remarried retains an absolute right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC despite the dissolution of marriage; (2) Whether the husband can avoid his maintenance obligation by pleading financial constraints, advanced age, or health issues without cogent medical evidence; (3) Whether the Family Court's quantification of maintenance at Rs 4,000 per month based on the State Government's minimum wages notification was perverse; and (4) Whether the revisional court can interfere with the Family Court's order absent illegality, impropriety, or irregularity in proceedings.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned Counsel for the petitioner-husband contended: (i) The impugned order was passed without proper appreciation of facts, evidence, and law; (ii) The respondent-wife was a tailor earning handsomely and able to maintain herself, rendering the maintenance order unsustainable; (iii) The awarded amount of Rs 4,000 per month was exorbitant and on the higher side given the petitioner was a casual labourer at an advanced age with health issues preventing him from working; (iv) The respondent-wife left the petitioner's company without reasonable cause and obtained a divorce, therefore she was not entitled to maintenance; (v) The impugned order could not sustain as affidavits of assets and liabilities were not filed in terms of Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324.
For the Respondent
Learned Counsel for the respondent-wife supported the impugned order, submitting: (i) The factum of marriage and its dissolution by divorce decree on 22.11.2021 did not absolve the petitioner-husband of his maintenance obligation; (ii) The respondent-wife had not remarried and did not fall within any exceptional category under Section 125(4) CrPC disentitling her to maintenance; (iii) The Family Court had balanced competing obligations and the order warranted no interference in the absence of illegality, impropriety, or irregularity.
The Court's Analysis
The Court systematically rejected each contention of the petitioner-husband. On the first contention, the Court found that the Family Court had followed due process: issues were framed, interim maintenance granted, evidence recorded, and the final order passed after appreciating pleadings, evidence, and applicable law. The contention was misplaced.
On the second contention, the Court held that the burden of proving the wife's income lay on the husband. The petitioner-husband failed to lead any evidence establishing the respondent-wife's earnings. The Family Court recorded a specific finding in Paragraph 23 that the husband failed to prove the wife's income. Mere conjectures and surmises could not substitute proof.
On the third contention regarding quantum, the Court noted the petitioner-husband deposed as a casual labourer, and the Family Court assessed his income at Rs 11,250 per month based on the State Government's minimum wages notification (Rs 375/day). The husband never challenged the notification as perverse, illegal, or inapplicable. The quantification at Rs 4,000 per month, balancing the husband's earning capacity and the wife's reasonable needs, was fair, just, and reasonable. Crucially, an affidavit filed by the petitioner in the revision proceedings revealed a "business loan" of Rs 93,000, which belied his claim of being a mere labourer and supported the wife's case that he was a contractor.
On the plea of advanced age and health, the Court invoked Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705, holding that an able-bodied person capable of earning cannot wriggle out of his legal obligation. Bald excuses of financial constraints, loan repayments, or health without cogent medical evidence have no acceptability in law. The husband's paramount liability to maintain his wife cannot be subordinated to financial commitments.
On the pivotal issue of post-divorce maintenance, the Court relied on a catena of Supreme Court judgments: Gurmeet Kaur v. Surjit Singh, (1996) 1 SCC 39; Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri, (2000) 3 SCC 180; Manoj Kumar v. Champa Devi, (2018) 12 SCC 748; Dr. Swapan Kumar Banerjee v. State of West Bengal, (2020) 19 SCC 342; and Himanshu Chordia v. State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal No. 003599 of 2026 (decided 31.07.2026). The Explanation to Section 125(1)(b) CrPC deems a divorced woman who has not remarried as a "wife" for maintenance purposes. Section 125(4) disqualifications (adultery, refusal without sufficient reason, mutual consent separation) do not apply to a divorced woman, as held in Vanamala v. H.M. Ranganatha Bhatta, (1995) 5 SCC 299. The divorce decree does not foreclose the right to maintenance.
The Court found that the respondent-wife was forced out of the matrimonial home in 2009 due to established acts of cruelty (abuse, beatings, denial of food/clothing, confinement to a single room). The divorce decree of 22.11.2021 recorded specific findings of cruelty. These constituted "sufficient reasons" under Section 125(4) for the wife not living with the husband. No evidence of adultery or mutual consent separation was placed on record. The respondent-wife deposed she had not remarried, which remained uncontroverted.
On revisional jurisdiction, the Court cited Shamima Farooqui to hold that mere possibility of a different conclusion does not warrant interference under Section 19(4) Family Courts Act absent illegality, impropriety, or irregularity. Substantial justice had been done.
On the Rajnesh v. Neha affidavit argument, the Court clarified that the affidavit requirement applies to interim maintenance adjudication (Paras 65, 72, 129), not final maintenance, which is decided on oral and documentary evidence. The petitioner-husband, having chosen not to file an affidavit before the Family Court, could not take advantage of his own wrong.
"The absolute right of the wife for maintenance cannot be sacrificed and subrogated for financial constraints, arising due to the asset construction or business etc [as in present case]. Plea of non-payability of maintenance by husband, due to ill health cannot be accepted, on bald assertions or conjectures and surmises."
The Verdict
The High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition (Cr. Revision [FC] No. 19 of 2024) and upheld the impugned order dated 23.01.2024 passed by the Family Court, Hamirpur, awarding maintenance of Rs 4,000 per month to the respondent-wife from 18.05.2019. The petitioner-husband was directed to release the maintenance amount after adjusting/set-off any maintenance granted under other statutes during divorce or other proceedings, within four weeks from the date of judgment (10.08.2026). Parties were directed to bear their respective costs. All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Divorced Wife's Maintenance Right Is Absolute Till Remarriage
- A divorced woman who has not remarried retains an absolute right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC by virtue of the Explanation to Section 125(1)(b).
- Section 125(4) disqualifications (adultery, refusal without sufficient reason, mutual consent separation) do not apply to a divorced woman (Vanamala, Rohtash Singh, Manoj Kumar, Swapan Kumar Banerjee, Himanshu Chordia).
- The divorce decree does not extinguish the husband's maintenance obligation; it merely changes the capacity in which the woman claims - from wife to divorced wife.
Husband's Financial Hardship Pleas Require Cogent Proof, Not Bald Assertions
- An able-bodied, healthy husband capable of earning cannot evade maintenance by pleading financial constraints, loan repayments, business losses, or advanced age without concrete medical or documentary evidence.
- The paramount obligation to maintain the wife cannot be subordinated to the husband's financial commitments or asset construction loans.
- If the husband's own affidavit reveals business loans or income inconsistent with his claimed status (e.g., casual labourer), the court will draw adverse inferences.
Revisional Interference Limited to Illegality, Impropriety, or Irregularity
- Under Section 19(4) Family Courts Act, a revisional court cannot interfere merely because it would have reached a different conclusion.
- Substantial justice done by the Family Court after proper appreciation of evidence warrants non-interference.
- The tendency to use revision petitions as a delay tactic to defeat the wife's sacrosanct right to maintenance is deprecated.
Rajnesh v. Neha Affidavit Mandate Applies to Interim, Not Final Maintenance
- The requirement to file affidavits of assets and liabilities under Rajnesh v. Neha governs interim maintenance adjudication.
- Final maintenance under Section 125(5) CrPC is decided on the basis of oral and documentary evidence led before the Family Court.
- A party who fails to file the affidavit before the trial court cannot later invoke its absence to challenge the final order.
Cruelty Findings in Divorce Decree Constitute "Sufficient Reason" Under Section 125(4)
- Where a divorce decree records specific findings that cruelty forced the wife to leave the matrimonial home, this constitutes "sufficient reason" under Section 125(4) CrPC, disentitling the husband from claiming the wife refused to live with him without cause.
- The wife's separate residence due to established cruelty does not amount to "living separately by mutual consent."
- The burden of proving adultery or mutual consent separation lies on the husband; mere allegations without evidence fail.
