The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that a spouse’s entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC cannot be denied or reduced based on unsubstantiated claims of diminished income. The judgment underscores the necessity of concrete evidence over oral assertions in maintenance proceedings, reinforcing the principle that financial capacity must be proven, not presumed.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Pravin Bhadane, challenged the Family Court’s order granting his estranged wife, Jayashree Bhadane, monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, along with arrears. The wife alleged that after marriage in 2003, she faced physical and mental harassment, was evicted from the marital home in 2016, and had no independent means of support. She claimed maintenance for herself and their two minor daughters, citing the husband’s prior ownership of a tractor dealership and brokerage income.
Procedural History
- 2018: Respondent-wife filed Petition E No. 40 of 2018 under Section 125 CrPC seeking Rs. 70,000/month for herself and Rs. 30,000/month each for her daughters.
- 2019: Family Court awarded Rs. 10,000/month maintenance to the wife, rejecting claims for daughter maintenance on grounds of their custody with the husband.
- 2021: Petitioner filed Criminal Revision Application No. 26 of 2021, challenging the order on grounds of reduced income and alleged abandonment.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought reduction or cancellation of the maintenance order, arguing that he had lost his dealership, now earned minimal income as a broker, and bore expenses for his children and elderly father. He also contended that the wife was already receiving relief under the Domestic Violence Act, rendering the Section 125 order redundant.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 125 CrPC permits reduction or denial of maintenance based solely on a husband’s unverified claim of diminished income, and whether prior relief under the Domestic Violence Act bars a separate maintenance petition.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the wife left the matrimonial home without just cause, forfeiting her right to maintenance. He asserted that the husband’s income had drastically declined after losing his tractor dealership, and that he now worked as a broker with irregular earnings. He further claimed that the wife was already receiving maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, making the Section 125 petition duplicative and unjust.
For the Respondent/State
The respondent’s counsel contended that the Family Court had correctly evaluated oral testimony and documentary evidence, including income tax returns and 7/12 extracts, which established the husband’s prior financial capacity. No documentary proof was offered to substantiate the alleged loss of business. The counsel emphasized that maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act and Section 125 CrPC serve distinct purposes and are not mutually exclusive.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the evidentiary foundation of the Family Court’s order and found no material error. It noted that while the husband claimed a drastic reduction in income, he produced no documents - such as sale deeds, bank statements, or business closure records - to corroborate his assertion. The wife, by contrast, submitted income tax returns and land records (7/12 extracts) that remained unchallenged.
"Though it is tried to be submitted before this Court that the dealership is lost, on Court query, learned counsel submitted that there is no documentary evidence regarding having lost such dealership or it to be no more with him."
The Court held that Section 125 CrPC is a social welfare provision designed to prevent destitution. The burden to prove inability to pay lies squarely on the husband, and mere verbal assertions are insufficient. The Court also clarified that relief under the Domestic Violence Act does not extinguish the right to maintenance under Section 125, as the two remedies operate under different statutory frameworks and serve complementary objectives.
The Family Court’s award of Rs. 10,000/month was deemed reasonable given the husband’s demonstrated past income and the wife’s lack of independent means. The Court emphasized that maintenance must be assessed based on actual, verifiable financial capacity - not speculative claims.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s revision was dismissed. The Court held that Section 125 CrPC entitles a wife to maintenance if she lacks independent means, and that alleged reduction in income must be substantiated by documentary evidence. The Family Court’s order was upheld as legally sound and factually supported.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Documentary Evidence Prevails Over Oral Assertions
- Practitioners must insist on production of bank statements, income tax returns, or business records to challenge a spouse’s claimed income.
- Mere verbal claims of business loss or reduced earnings will not suffice to reduce or cancel maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
- Courts will not accept self-serving affidavits without corroboration.
Maintenance Under DV Act and Section 125 CrPC Are Cumulative
- A wife may simultaneously seek relief under both the Domestic Violence Act and Section 125 CrPC.
- The existence of one remedy does not bar the other; courts must assess each claim on its own merits.
- Advocates should not argue mutual exclusivity - this is a legal misconception now definitively rejected.
Burden of Proof Rests on the Alleged Payor
- The husband bears the burden to prove inability to pay, not the wife to prove ability to pay.
- Failure to produce financial documents will result in the court relying on the last known or documented income.
- Practitioners should prepare clients to produce at least three years of income records before contesting maintenance.
