The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that a wife’s right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is not forfeited merely because she is employed or because marital discord exists. The judgment clarifies that financial independence does not equate to self-sufficiency, and mental cruelty remains a valid ground for living separately.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The respondent-wife, Smt. Versha Verma, filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance after alleging sustained mental cruelty and dowry-related harassment from her husband, Manish Verma. She claimed she was subjected to derogatory nicknames like "Tonhi" and "Daiyan," and was abandoned at her parental home. The husband denied all allegations, asserting that she left voluntarily due to disagreements over dietary preferences and refused to return unless provided a separate residence.
Procedural History
- December 2020: Marriage solemnized under Hindu rites
- 2023: Respondent filed maintenance application under Section 125 CrPC
- January 2024: Family Court, Raipur, ordered applicant to pay Rs. 11,000/month as maintenance
- February 2024: Applicant filed criminal revision challenging the order
- January 2026: Chhattisgarh High Court heard the revision and dismissed it
Relief Sought
The applicant sought quashing of the maintenance order, arguing that the respondent was financially independent, had no legitimate reason to live separately, and that the quantum of maintenance exceeded his capacity.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a wife’s employment income and voluntary separation due to marital discord automatically disqualify her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, or whether the presence of mental cruelty and the husband’s ability to pay remain decisive factors.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The applicant argued that the Family Court erred in ignoring his limited income of Rs. 26,700/month and substantial liabilities, including a Rs. 11,700/month car loan. He contended that the respondent earned Rs. 20,000/month from tuition and computer work, was educated and self-reliant, and had left the matrimonial home without justification. He cited Rajnesh v. Neha to argue that maintenance should reflect actual need and not be a tool for financial leverage.
For the Respondent
The respondent did not appear or file any written submissions. The Court relied on her pleadings and evidence recorded before the Family Court, which established a pattern of mental cruelty and abandonment.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the findings of the Family Court, which had relied on oral and documentary evidence to conclude that the respondent was subjected to mental cruelty through dowry-related taunts and accusations of witchcraft. The Court emphasized that Section 125 CrPC is a social welfare provision designed to prevent destitution, and its scope is not narrowed by the wife’s employment.
"The fact that the respondent is employed does not ipso facto disentitle her to maintenance. The statute does not require absolute destitution, only inability to maintain oneself."
The Court noted that the husband’s claim of financial hardship was undermined by his failure to produce income tax returns or bank statements. His assertion of Rs. 26,700/month income was accepted, but the Court held that even after deducting the car loan, he retained sufficient means. The Court also rejected the argument that the wife’s refusal to return without a separate house amounted to voluntary desertion, observing that such a condition was not unreasonable given the alleged cruelty.
The Court further affirmed that Rajnesh v. Neha does not mandate denial of maintenance to working wives, but rather requires a balanced assessment of both parties’ circumstances. The Family Court had correctly applied this principle.
The Verdict
The applicant’s revision was dismissed. The Court held that Section 125 CrPC entitles a wife to maintenance if she is unable to maintain herself, regardless of employment, provided she has not left the matrimonial home without reasonable cause. The quantum of Rs. 11,000/month was upheld as reasonable.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Employment Does Not Bar Maintenance
- Practitioners must argue that Section 125 CrPC is not a means test but a need-based provision
- A wife’s income is a factor, not a bar - courts must assess net disposable income after essential expenses
- Evidence of mental cruelty remains decisive even if the wife is employed
Financial Hardship Must Be Documented
- Claims of financial incapacity require concrete proof: bank statements, loan agreements, tax returns
- Self-serving affidavits without corroboration are insufficient to reduce maintenance
- Courts will not accept vague assertions of "burden" without substantiation
Voluntary Separation Requires Justification
- A wife’s refusal to return to a home where she faced cruelty is not "voluntary desertion"
- Conditions like separate accommodation are not unreasonable if linked to safety or dignity
- Courts must distinguish between legitimate grievances and mere marital discord
