Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC | Adultery and Voluntary Desertion as Grounds for Reduction : Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court's recent decision in Amit Dadsena v. Janki Jaiswal reaffirms that maintenance awards under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be mechanically reduced merely because the wife has allegedly committed adultery or voluntarily deserted the matrimonial home. The judgment underscores that financial capacity, needs of the dependent spouse, and overall circumstances must be holistically evaluated before modifying maintenance orders.

Background & Facts

The Matrimonial Dispute

The applicant, Amit Dadsena, and the respondent, Janki Jaiswal, were married in 2010 and have two children aged 10 and 8 years. The respondent left the matrimonial home on 06.03.2022 and has since been residing with her father. The applicant alleged that the respondent was involved in a love affair with one Monu Gupta and had refused to return despite social mediation efforts. The respondent filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance.

Procedural History

The case progressed through the following stages:

• 2022: The respondent filed a maintenance application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli.
• 13.12.2022: The court granted interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000 per month.
• 30.03.2024: The Family Court awarded Rs. 7,000 per month as permanent maintenance, prompting the applicant to file the present revision petition.

Relief Sought

The applicant sought the setting aside of the Family Court's order dated 30.03.2024, contending that:

• The respondent had voluntarily deserted the matrimonial home.
• The respondent was in a relationship with another man, which disentitled her to maintenance.
• The maintenance amount was excessive given his income.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the High Court was whether allegations of adultery or voluntary desertion alone suffice to reduce or deny maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, or whether the court must additionally consider the financial capacity of the husband and the needs of the wife.

Arguments Presented

For the Applicant

The applicant's counsel argued that:

• The respondent had voluntarily deserted the matrimonial home and was in a relationship with another man, which disentitled her to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
• The Family Court failed to consider statements recorded before the Family Counseling Centre, where the respondent admitted to the affair.
• The maintenance amount of Rs. 7,000 was excessive and disproportionate to the applicant's income.

For the Respondent

While the respondent's arguments were not explicitly detailed in the judgment, the Family Court's order suggests that:

• The respondent's financial dependence and needs were prioritized over allegations of misconduct.
• The court considered the price index and medical expenses in determining the maintenance amount.

The Court's Analysis

The High Court examined the applicant's contentions in light of established legal principles governing Section 125 CrPC. The court noted that while allegations of adultery or desertion may be relevant, they do not automatically disentitle a wife to maintenance. The judgment emphasized the following key principles:

1. Purpose of Section 125 CrPC: The provision is social welfare legislation aimed at preventing vagrancy and destitution. The court observed that the primary consideration is the financial capacity of the husband and the needs of the dependent spouse, rather than moral judgments about the wife's conduct.

2. Adultery and Desertion: The court acknowledged that the respondent had allegedly committed adultery and voluntarily left the matrimonial home. However, it held that these factors cannot be the sole basis for denying or reducing maintenance. The court relied on the precedent in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, where the Supreme Court held that Section 125 CrPC is not punitive but preventive, and the wife's conduct is only one of several factors to be considered.

3. Financial Capacity and Needs: The High Court noted that the Family Court had considered the price index, medical expenses, and the applicant's financial capacity before awarding Rs. 7,000 as maintenance. The court held that the amount could not be termed shockingly high or arbitrary, given the circumstances.

4. Evidence Appreciation: The applicant had relied on statements recorded before the Family Counseling Centre to prove the respondent's adultery. However, the High Court did not find sufficient grounds to interfere with the Family Court's appreciation of evidence, particularly since the lower court had already considered the financial aspects.

"Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition."

The Verdict

The High Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the Family Court's order awarding Rs. 7,000 per month as maintenance to the respondent. The court held that allegations of adultery or voluntary desertion alone do not justify reducing maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, and the financial capacity of the husband and needs of the wife must be the primary considerations.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Adultery and Desertion Are Not Absolute Bars to Maintenance

Practitioners must note that allegations of adultery or voluntary desertion cannot be used as standalone grounds to deny or reduce maintenance. Courts will continue to prioritize the financial needs of the dependent spouse and the capacity of the husband to pay. Lawyers should focus on presenting comprehensive evidence of financial circumstances rather than relying solely on allegations of misconduct.

Financial Capacity and Needs Remain Paramount

• For Husbands: To successfully challenge maintenance orders, husbands must provide detailed evidence of their income, expenses, and financial liabilities. Mere allegations of the wife's misconduct will not suffice.
• For Wives: Even in cases where adultery or desertion is alleged, wives can strengthen their claims by demonstrating financial dependence and reasonable needs, such as children's education and medical expenses.

Family Counseling Centre Records Are Not Conclusive

While statements recorded before the Family Counseling Centre may be relevant, they do not automatically override financial considerations. Courts will weigh such evidence alongside other factors, including the price index and inflation, before arriving at a decision.