Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC | Cruelty and Desertion Must Be Proved : Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that maintenance claims under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure require concrete proof of cruelty or unjustified desertion, not mere allegations. The judgment underscores that family courts must evaluate evidence objectively before awarding maintenance, particularly when counter-allegations of extramarital affairs or voluntary separation exist.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The case originated from a maintenance application filed by Smt. Fuleshwri Sonant under Section 125 CrPC against her husband, Pramod Kumar Sonant, a constable. The non-applicant alleged that within days of marriage, she faced dowry demands, confinement without basic amenities, and forced labor. She claimed her husband abandoned her at her maternal home in July 2021, refusing to resume cohabitation despite mediation attempts.

Procedural History

The dispute progressed through the following stages:

• 2022: Non-applicant filed Cr. M.J.C. No. 65/2022 before the Family Court, Korba
• 03.02.2024: Family Court awarded ₹6,000/month maintenance to the non-applicant
• 2024: Husband filed Criminal Revision No. 567/2024 challenging the order

Relief Sought

The applicant sought quashing of the maintenance order, arguing:

1. The non-applicant left the matrimonial home voluntarily
2. Evidence of her extramarital affair was disregarded
3. Financial constraints (loan obligations, rented accommodation) were not considered

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether Section 125 CrPC entitles a wife to maintenance when:

1. She allegedly deserted the matrimonial home without sufficient cause
2. Counter-allegations of extramarital affairs exist
3. The husband demonstrates financial incapacity due to pre-existing liabilities

Arguments Presented

For the Applicant (Husband)

The applicant’s counsel contended:

• The Family Court erred in ignoring evidence of the non-applicant’s extramarital affair with one Nikesh
• The non-applicant’s voluntary departure from the matrimonial home disentitled her to maintenance
• The financial burden of marriage loans and family obligations left the applicant with limited means
• The non-applicant, being a working woman (tailor), was capable of self-support

For the Respondent (Wife)

The non-applicant’s counsel argued:

• The Family Court correctly evaluated evidence of cruelty, including dowry demands and confinement
• The applicant’s failure to disclose sonography results raised suspicions of foul play
• The maintenance amount (₹6,000) was justified given the applicant’s stable income as a constable

The Court's Analysis

The High Court conducted a de novo review of the evidence, focusing on two key principles:

1. Burden of Proof in Maintenance Claims The Court reiterated that Section 125 CrPC is a social welfare provision, but its application requires:

• Proof of neglect or refusal by the husband to maintain the wife
• Evidence that the wife is unable to maintain herself

"The mere fact that the wife has left the matrimonial home does not automatically disentitle her to maintenance. The court must examine whether the departure was justified or a result of cruelty."

1. Evaluation of Cruelty and Desertion The Court distinguished between mere allegations and substantiated claims of cruelty:

• The non-applicant’s allegations of dowry demands and confinement were supported by witness statements
• The applicant’s counter-allegations of an extramarital affair were not conclusively proven
• The financial capacity of the applicant was established through his employment records

The Court also emphasized that Section 125 CrPC is not punitive but remedial, designed to prevent vagrancy. Thus, even if the wife’s conduct was questionable, the primary consideration remained her financial dependence and the husband’s ability to pay.

The Verdict

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision, upholding the Family Court’s order. The key holdings were:

1. The non-applicant proved cruelty and unjustified desertion by the husband
2. The maintenance amount (₹6,000) was reasonable given the applicant’s income
3. Allegations of extramarital affairs did not outweigh the wife’s right to maintenance in the absence of conclusive proof

What This Means For Similar Cases

Cruelty Must Be Substantiated, Not Merely Alleged

Family courts must:

• Scrutinize evidence of cruelty, including witness statements and documentary proof
• Distinguish between allegations and proof - mere accusations of extramarital affairs or misconduct are insufficient to deny maintenance
• Consider the wife’s financial dependence as the primary factor, even if her conduct is not beyond reproach

Financial Capacity Is Not Absolute

Practitioners should note:

• Loan obligations and family responsibilities may reduce disposable income but do not absolve maintenance liability
• Rented accommodation is not a valid ground to deny maintenance if the husband has a stable income
• Working wives may still claim maintenance if their earnings are insufficient for sustenance

Desertion Requires Justification

• Voluntary departure from the matrimonial home may disentitle a wife to maintenance only if the husband proves sufficient cause
• Mediation failures do not automatically justify desertion - courts must assess the underlying reasons for separation