The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that a wife seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC must establish a reasonable and sufficient cause for living separately from her husband. Vague allegations of cruelty, unsupported by evidence, cannot sustain a maintenance claim. This judgment reinforces the necessity of substantive proof over conclusory assertions in family proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The respondent-wife, Smt. Naziya Fatima, filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking monthly maintenance of Rs. 22,500 from her husband, Ahtesham Ali. The marriage was solemnized under Muslim rites on 02.02.2020. She alleged post-marital dowry demands, social isolation, and harassment over infertility. She claimed she was abandoned on 30.08.2020 after returning from a ten-day visit to her parental home during Moharram. A reconciliation meeting arranged on 01.09.2020 failed due to the applicant’s non-appearance.
Procedural History
- 2023: Maintenance application filed before Family Court, Raipur
- 2024: Family Court awarded Rs. 7,000/month maintenance, accepting wife’s income claim of Rs. 45,000
- 2024: Husband filed Criminal Revision challenging the order
- 02.02.2026: Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the revision
Relief Sought
The applicant sought quashing of the maintenance order, arguing that the wife had no reasonable cause for separation, concealed her own income (Rs. 10,000/month from tailoring), and failed to substantiate allegations with documentary evidence.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 125 CrPC permits maintenance where the wife lives separately without proving reasonable cause, and whether unsubstantiated allegations of cruelty suffice to establish entitlement.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The applicant’s counsel contended that the Family Court erred by accepting the wife’s self-serving declaration of Rs. 45,000 income without documentary proof. It was argued that the wife’s conduct - threatening suicide, filing false police complaints, and refusing to return despite reconciliation attempts - demonstrated her intent to exploit the law. The husband’s actual income of Rs. 7,000/month, with Rs. 3,000 spent on his mother’s medical care, was ignored. The counsel relied on Rajnesh v. Neha and Smt. Sunita Devi v. Smt. Sushma Devi to argue that maintenance cannot be granted where separation is without cause.
For the Respondent
The wife’s counsel argued that the Family Court had properly weighed evidence, including the husband’s failure to rebut the income claim and his absence from reconciliation. She contended that the burden of proof lay on the husband to disprove the allegations, and that the Court’s discretion under Section 125 must favor the economically weaker spouse.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the essential conditions for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, particularly the requirement that the wife must be living separately for a reasonable and sufficient cause. It noted that the wife’s allegations of cruelty were general, lacking specific instances, dates, or corroborative evidence. The Court emphasized that the wife and her father admitted during cross-examination that no documentary proof existed to support the claims of harassment or dowry demands.
"The maintenance application was filed almost three years after separation, which itself indicates that there was no immediate necessity or financial hardship."
The Court further held that the Family Court’s reliance on an uncorroborated income declaration was legally unsustainable. The husband’s affidavit detailing his medical expenses for his dependent mother was disregarded without justification. The Court observed that the wife’s silence when asked if she would return to the matrimonial home indicated her intent to remain separated without cause. The Court distinguished this case from those where cruelty is proven through medical reports, witness testimony, or police records. It concluded that the Family Court’s order was based on speculation, not evidence.
The Verdict
The applicant prevailed. The Chhattisgarh High Court held that Section 125 CrPC cannot be invoked where separation lacks reasonable cause, and that unsubstantiated allegations cannot form the basis for maintenance. The order granting Rs. 7,000/month maintenance was upheld not because it was correct, but because the revision was dismissed on procedural grounds - no illegality was found in the Family Court’s process, though the reasoning was flawed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Reasonable Cause Must Be Proven
- Practitioners must now establish specific, verifiable facts demonstrating why the wife left the matrimonial home
- Generalized claims of mental cruelty or dowry demands without corroboration will not suffice
- Delay in filing maintenance (e.g., three years) weakens the claim unless justified by ongoing hardship
Income Claims Require Documentary Support
- Self-declared income by either party must be backed by bank statements, salary slips, or tax returns
- Courts cannot accept oral assertions as gospel, especially when contradicted by affidavits
- Medical expenses for dependents must be factored into disposable income calculations
Silence Can Be Adverse Evidence
- A wife’s refusal to answer whether she will return to her husband may be treated as an admission of no intention to reconcile
- This principle applies in both maintenance and divorce proceedings under Section 125 CrPC and Section 13A of the Hindu Marriage Act
