The Chhattisgarh High Court has affirmed that a wife’s entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is not negated by the husband’s personal financial burdens if she is genuinely destitute and lacks independent means. The Court dismissed the husband’s revision petition, upholding the Family Court’s order directing monthly maintenance of Rs.12,000.
The Verdict
The wife won. The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the Family Court’s order directing the husband to pay Rs.12,000 per month as maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The core legal holding is that a wife’s right to maintenance is not defeated by the husband’s claimed financial liabilities if she is unemployed, lacks independent income, and has been driven out of the matrimonial home due to cruelty. The relief granted was the dismissal of the revision petition and confirmation of the maintenance award.
Background & Facts
The respondent-wife, Smt. Anamika Das, filed a maintenance application before the Family Court, Manendragarh, alleging that her marriage to the applicant-husband, Prashant Kumar Das, solemnized on 24.01.2012, was marred by continuous cruelty and dowry demands. She claimed that after relocating to Bilaspur in February 2022, the harassment intensified, including demands for Rs.10 lakhs, physical assault, and misappropriation of her jewellery, compelling her to leave the matrimonial home on 12.06.2022. She stated she was unemployed and had no source of income.
The husband denied the allegations, contending that his wife left of her own accord, was gainfully employed as a school teacher earning Rs.20,000 per month, and that his own net income after deductions was only Rs.10,000 - 12,000. He submitted documents showing a home loan, medical expenses for his aged mother, and a pending application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.
The Family Court, by order dated 14.07.2023, awarded Rs.12,000 per month as maintenance, finding the wife’s allegations credible and her financial vulnerability established. The husband filed a criminal revision before the High Court challenging the order on grounds of factual and legal error.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a husband’s claimed financial constraints - such as medical expenses for dependents and personal liabilities - can override a wife’s statutory right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC when she is unemployed, has no independent income, and has been forced to leave the matrimonial home due to cruelty.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The husband’s counsel argued that the Family Court erred in ignoring his actual net income of Rs.10,000 - 12,000 after deductions, and failed to account for his substantial liabilities: a home loan, medical expenses exceeding Rs.10,000 per month for his ailing mother, and the wife’s own employment and income of Rs.20,000. It was contended that the wife left voluntarily and had not proven destitution, making the maintenance award unjust and unsustainable.
For the Respondent
The respondent-wife did not appear or file any written submissions. The Court proceeded on the basis of her application and the Family Court’s findings, which were supported by documentary and testimonial evidence of cruelty and financial dependence.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court emphasized that Section 125 CrPC is a social welfare provision designed to prevent vagrancy and destitution among spouses who are unable to maintain themselves. The Court noted that the Family Court had carefully evaluated the pleadings, the wife’s allegations of cruelty, and the husband’s financial disclosures. The Court found no error in the Family Court’s conclusion that the wife was compelled to leave the matrimonial home due to harassment and had no means of support.
"The respondent-wife is unemployed and has no independent source of income, whereas the revisioner is gainfully employed in CMPDI and receives a monthly salary."
The Court rejected the husband’s argument that his medical obligations to his mother or home loan obligations could negate his statutory duty. It held that while such liabilities may be considered in determining the quantum, they cannot extinguish the obligation entirely, especially when the wife’s destitution is established. The Court also noted that the wife’s alleged employment was not substantiated by any official records, and even if she were employed, her income did not negate her right to maintenance where she was abandoned and subjected to cruelty.
The Court further observed that the husband’s application under Section 9 for restitution of conjugal rights did not negate the wife’s right to maintenance, as the two remedies operate independently. The Family Court’s award of Rs.12,000 was deemed reasonable, balancing the wife’s needs and the husband’s capacity.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment reinforces that Section 125 CrPC is not a mere income-based calculation but a rights-based remedy for protection against destitution. Practitioners must understand that a wife’s entitlement is not contingent on absolute poverty but on lack of means to maintain herself, particularly when she has been driven out of the matrimonial home due to cruelty. Financial obligations of the husband, including medical care for parents or loans, are relevant only to determine the quantum, not to deny the right.
Future applications must focus on establishing the wife’s actual financial dependence and the husband’s capacity to pay, rather than merely disputing income figures. Documentation of cruelty and abandonment remains critical. This ruling also clarifies that a pending Section 9 petition does not bar maintenance proceedings, and vice versa. Lawyers should advise clients that self-sufficiency claims without corroborative evidence (e.g., payslips, employment records) will not suffice to defeat maintenance.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment reinforces that Section 125 CrPC is not a mere income-based calculation but a rights-based remedy for protection against destitution. Practitioners must understand that a wife’s entitlement is not contingent on absolute poverty but on lack of means to maintain herself, particularly when she has been driven out of the matrimonial home due to cruelty. Financial obligations of the husband, including medical care for parents or loans, are relevant only to determine the quantum, not to deny the right.
Future applications must focus on establishing the wife’s actual financial dependence and the husband’s capacity to pay, rather than merely disputing income figures. Documentation of cruelty and abandonment remains critical. This ruling also clarifies that a pending Section 9 petition does not bar maintenance proceedings, and vice versa. Lawyers should advise clients that self-sufficiency claims without corroborative evidence (e.g., payslips, employment records) will not suffice to defeat maintenance.
