The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that a wife’s right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is not extinguished by prolonged delay or prior receipt of property, reinforcing the protective intent of the provision for economically vulnerable spouses.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose between Gokul Ram Lodhi and his wife, Smt. Narbadiya Bai, who were married for nearly 40 years under Hindu rites. The respondent alleged that after 34 - 35 years of marriage, the applicant developed an illicit relationship with another woman, subjected her to cruelty, and forcibly ejected her from the matrimonial home. She claimed she was left destitute, forced to live in her parental village, and survive through manual labor until ill health rendered her unable to work. The applicant denied all allegations, asserting that the respondent left voluntarily and that he only remarried after her departure.
Procedural History
- 2021: Respondent filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month.
- 10.10.2023: Family Court, Khairagarh, partly allowed the application and ordered the applicant to pay Rs. 2,000 per month as maintenance.
- 2024: Applicant filed criminal revision before the Chhattisgarh High Court challenging the maintenance order as excessive and legally unsustainable.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought quashing of the maintenance order, arguing that the respondent was not entitled to relief due to her delay in approaching the court, her receipt of a share in agricultural land, and her current residence with her employed daughter.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether delay in filing a maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC, coupled with prior receipt of property or residence with a financially independent child, operates as a legal bar to entitlement to maintenance.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Learned counsel contended that the Family Court erred in ignoring the binding precedent in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, which mandates a realistic assessment of income, liabilities, and standard of living. He argued that the applicant, being a small-scale agriculturist with uncertain income, could not afford Rs. 2,000 monthly. He further asserted that the respondent’s 34-year delay in seeking maintenance, her receipt of a share in agricultural land, and her current support from her employed daughter rendered her claim legally untenable.
For the Respondent
The respondent’s counsel maintained that the Family Court had correctly weighed the evidence and awarded a modest sum. No substantive counter-arguments were advanced beyond affirming the trial court’s findings.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined whether the Family Court’s order suffered from any jurisdictional error, perversity, or misapplication of law. It noted that the Family Court had carefully considered oral testimony, the applicant’s ownership of multiple agricultural parcels, his admission of transferring land to daughters, and the respondent’s age, health, and lack of independent income. The Court emphasized that Section 125 CrPC is a social welfare provision designed to prevent destitution, and its purpose cannot be undermined by technicalities.
"The provision is not a reward for marital fidelity but a shield against abandonment and destitution."
The Court rejected the argument that delay alone disentitles a claimant, citing that Section 125 CrPC does not prescribe any limitation period and that courts must consider the reason for delay, not merely its duration. It further held that receipt of property in the past does not extinguish the right to maintenance, especially where the property is insufficient to ensure sustenance. The fact that the respondent resides with her employed daughter does not absolve the husband of his statutory obligation, as maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is independent of third-party support.
The Court also found no error in the Family Court’s income assessment. The applicant’s ownership of agricultural land, even if not yielding high cash income, constituted sufficient means under the statute. The award of Rs. 2,000 per month was deemed modest and proportionate.
The Verdict
The applicant’s revision was dismissed. The Court held that delay in filing and prior property division do not extinguish a wife’s right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, and that the Family Court’s order was neither arbitrary nor legally flawed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Delay Alone Cannot Disqualify a Claim
- Practitioners must argue that delay must be examined for reasonableness, not treated as a per se bar.
- Courts must consider whether the claimant was unaware of rights, incapacitated, or economically dependent during the delay.
- The burden is on the respondent to show prejudice caused by delay, not on the petitioner to justify it.
Property Settlement Does Not Absolve Maintenance Obligation
- A wife’s receipt of land or assets in the past does not negate her right to ongoing maintenance.
- Courts must assess whether the property received is sufficient for current sustenance, not merely whether it was received.
- Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is distinct from civil property rights and operates independently.
Maintenance Must Be Proportionate, Not Minimalist
- The Court’s affirmation of Rs. 2,000/month signals that even modest sums are valid if they meet basic needs.
- Practitioners should avoid arguing for zero maintenance based on the respondent’s residence with family; dependency, not cohabitation, is the test.
- Income assessment must include non-cash assets like land, especially in rural contexts.
