Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC | Financial Capacity Must Be Assessed Holistically : Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court's recent judgment in Pawasnand Bharti v. Smt. Pragya Bharti reaffirms the principles governing maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court emphasized that maintenance orders must balance the wife's right to dignified sustenance with the husband's financial capacity, including dependent obligations. This decision provides crucial guidance for practitioners navigating maintenance disputes, particularly where income sources are irregular or disputed.

Background & Facts

The Matrimonial Dispute

The parties, Pawasnand Bharti (applicant) and Smt. Pragya Bharti (respondent), were married on 16 February 2022 in Raipur. The respondent-wife filed an application under Section 125 CrPC on 9 August 2023, alleging cruelty and dowry harassment. Key allegations included:

• Demand for a car as dowry by the applicant and his family
• Taunting for insufficient dowry
• Forcible eviction from the matrimonial home on 18 September 2022
• Registration of an FIR under Sections 498-A/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

The respondent, educated only up to 12th standard with no independent income, sought maintenance of Rs. 50,000 per month, claiming the applicant earned Rs. 1,00,000 monthly as a musician and vehicle renter.

Procedural History

The case progressed through the following stages:

• 9 August 2023: Application under Section 125 CrPC filed before Family Court, Raipur
• 22 August 2024: Family Court awarded Rs. 7,000 monthly maintenance
• 2024: Criminal Revision filed before Chhattisgarh High Court

Relief Sought

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

• The maintenance amount was excessive given his meagre income (Rs. 5,000/month)
• The respondent voluntarily left the matrimonial home
• He had dependent parents and an unmarried sister

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the Family Court erred in assessing the applicant's financial capacity under Section 125 CrPC by:

1. Failing to consider his dependent obligations
2. Overestimating his income from irregular sources (Bhajan Mandali performances)
3. Disregarding the respondent's alleged voluntary separation

Arguments Presented

For the Applicant

The applicant's counsel argued:

• The applicant's actual income was Rs. 5,000/month, not Rs. 1,00,000 as claimed by the respondent
• He had dependent parents and an unmarried sister to support
• The respondent refused to return to the matrimonial home unless he separated from his parents
• The Family Court failed to appreciate the uncertainty of income from traditional music performances
• The maintenance amount was disproportionate to his financial capacity

For the Respondent

The respondent's counsel contended:

• The applicant's income was corroborated by evidence of vehicle rentals and orchestra performances
• The FIR under Sections 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act supported allegations of cruelty
• The respondent was forcibly evicted from the matrimonial home
• The maintenance amount (Rs. 7,000) was modest and proportionate to the applicant's capacity

The Court's Analysis

The High Court conducted a meticulous review of the Family Court's order, focusing on three key aspects:

1. Assessment of Financial Capacity

The Court observed that Section 125 CrPC mandates a holistic assessment of the husband's financial capacity, including:

• Actual income from all sources
• Dependent obligations (parents, siblings)
• Reasonable needs of the wife

"The learned Family Court judiciously assessed the earning capacity of the applicant on the basis of material available on record and rightly concluded that the respondent, being educated only up to 12th standard and having no independent or sufficient source of income, is entitled to maintenance to sustain herself with dignity."

The Court rejected the applicant's claim of earning only Rs. 5,000/month, noting that the Family Court had considered evidence of vehicle rentals and orchestra performances. However, it acknowledged that the Family Court had already accounted for the applicant's financial constraints by awarding a modest amount (Rs. 7,000).

1. Voluntary Separation vs. Forcible Eviction

The Court examined the applicant's claim that the respondent voluntarily left the matrimonial home. It noted:

• The respondent's allegation of forcible eviction was supported by an FIR
• The applicant's willingness to resume cohabitation was not sufficient to negate the respondent's right to maintenance
• The burden of proof for voluntary separation rested on the applicant, who failed to substantiate his claim

1. Proportionality of Maintenance Amount

The Court emphasized that maintenance orders must strike a balance between:

• The wife's right to dignified sustenance
• The husband's financial capacity

It held that the Family Court had appropriately considered:

• The respondent's lack of independent income
• The applicant's alleged income sources
• The modest needs of the respondent

The Court concluded that Rs. 7,000/month was reasonable and proportionate, given the circumstances.

The Verdict

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the criminal revision, upholding the Family Court's order. The Court held that:

1. The maintenance amount was reasonable and proportionate
2. The financial capacity assessment was conducted in accordance with Section 125 CrPC
3. The evidence of cruelty and dowry harassment supported the respondent's claim

What This Means For Similar Cases

Holistic Financial Capacity Assessment Is Mandatory

Practitioners must ensure that maintenance orders under Section 125 CrPC account for:

• All income sources, including irregular or disputed ones
• Dependent obligations (parents, siblings, children from previous marriages)
• Reasonable needs of the wife, considering her education and employability

Courts are likely to scrutinize claims of meagre income, especially where alternative evidence (e.g., vehicle rentals, FIRs) suggests higher earning capacity.

Voluntary Separation Claims Require Strict Proof

• The burden of proof for voluntary separation rests on the husband
• Mere willingness to resume cohabitation is insufficient to deny maintenance
• Documentary evidence (e.g., mediation records, witness statements) is crucial to substantiate such claims

Modest Maintenance Awards Are Likely to Be Upheld

• Courts are inclined to award modest maintenance amounts where the husband's financial capacity is limited
• Practitioners should focus on proportionality rather than absolute figures
• Dowry harassment allegations (supported by FIRs) strengthen the wife's claim for maintenance