The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not a mechanical entitlement but must be grounded in concrete proof of the wife’s inability to support herself and the husband’s capacity to pay. This decision clarifies the evidentiary threshold in matrimonial maintenance proceedings, reinforcing judicial caution against speculative awards.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The respondent-wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking monthly maintenance, alleging mental and physical cruelty, dowry harassment, and denial of access to her family during her father’s illness and funeral. She claimed she was driven out of the matrimonial home and left without means of support. The applicant-husband denied all allegations, asserting that the wife refused cohabitation from the outset, treated him with cruelty, and that he had no income due to business failure. He further contended that he personally arranged and paid for his father-in-law’s last rites.
Procedural History
- 2021: Respondent filed Criminal M.C.C. No. 541/2021 before the Family Court, Raipur, seeking maintenance.
- 2023: Family Court partially allowed the application, directing the husband to pay Rs. 12,000 per month.
- 2023: Husband filed Criminal Revision No. 489/2023 before the Chhattisgarh High Court, challenging the maintenance order.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought quashing of the maintenance order, arguing that the Family Court ignored his affidavit of unemployment, GST records showing nil tax liability, and the respondent’s own admissions regarding her employment and lack of documentary proof of his alleged income.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 125 Cr.P.C. permits a maintenance award based on mere GST registration and unsubstantiated assumptions of income, or whether the court must establish both the wife’s inability to maintain herself and the husband’s actual sufficient means through credible evidence.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel argued that the Family Court erred by ignoring the husband’s affidavit, corroborated by GST records showing zero tax liability for relevant financial years. He emphasized that the respondent failed to produce any proof of his alleged monthly income of Rs. 5 lakhs, despite being cross-examined on the matter. He cited Rajnesh v. Neha to assert that courts must rely on verified financial disclosures, not speculative inferences. Further, he contended that the wife’s prolonged separation without cause amounted to wilful desertion, disentitling her to maintenance.
For the Respondent
The respondent did not appear or file any written submissions. The Court noted the absence of any rebuttal to the appellant’s evidence, including the GST records and affidavit of unemployment.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the Family Court’s reasoning and found that while the lower court acknowledged the husband’s GST registration, it failed to link it to actual income. The Family Court assumed business activity equated to sufficient means without examining profit-and-loss statements, bank statements, or any other financial documentation. The Court observed that GST registration alone cannot be equated with taxable income or financial capacity.
"The mere existence of a GST registration does not establish that the applicant is earning substantial income or has sufficient means to maintain his wife."
The Court further noted that the respondent admitted during cross-examination that she could not produce any evidence of the husband’s income. Meanwhile, the husband’s affidavit and GST records were unchallenged. The Court held that Section 125 Cr.P.C. requires a factual foundation for maintenance, not assumptions. The Family Court’s failure to appreciate this constituted a legal error, but not one warranting interference, as the amount awarded was modest and not manifestly excessive.
The Court emphasized that while the order was not legally flawless, it did not cross the threshold of illegality or jurisdictional error. The principle of judicial restraint applied: unless the order is perverse or arbitrary, appellate courts should not substitute their own assessment.
The Verdict
The applicant’s revision was dismissed. The Court held that while the Family Court’s reasoning was inadequate, the maintenance amount of Rs. 12,000 per month was not unreasonable given the wife’s limited means and the husband’s registered business status. The Court affirmed that maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. must be based on verified financial evidence, not presumptions.
What This Means For Similar Cases
GST Registration Alone Is Insufficient to Prove Income
- Practitioners must now demand bank statements, ITRs, or profit-and-loss accounts to substantiate claims of income under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
- Merely citing GST registration as proof of means is legally untenable and will not sustain a maintenance order.
Burden of Proof Remains on the Claimant, But Courts Must Scrutinize Financial Claims
- The wife bears the burden to prove her need and the husband’s means, but courts cannot abdicate their duty to verify.
- Where the respondent fails to rebut documentary evidence of unemployment or nil income, courts must not rely on speculative inferences.
Modest Awards May Survive Even With Flawed Reasoning
- If the maintenance amount is reasonable and not exorbitant, courts may decline to interfere even if the reasoning is deficient, under the doctrine of harmless error.
- Practitioners should focus on challenging the basis of the award, not just its outcome, to secure reversal.
