The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be granted if the wife resides separately without sufficient cause, even if the husband has the means to pay. The judgment underscores the statutory mandate that maintenance claims must strictly comply with the conditions prescribed under the law, particularly the requirement that the wife must establish a valid reason for living apart from her husband.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case involves a matrimonial dispute between Gyanendra Kumar Kosre (the husband) and Satyabhama Kosre (the wife). Their marriage was solemnized on 21 April 2022 in accordance with Hindu rites. The wife filed an application under Section 125 CrPC, alleging ill-treatment by her in-laws, including taunts about dowry, cleanliness, and cooking. She further claimed that her in-laws accused her parents of practicing witchcraft (tonhi) and restricted her communication with them. The husband, however, contended that the wife was mentally unfit, frequently shouted without reason, and refused to live in a joint family. He also alleged that the wife’s father threatened his family and that the wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home.
Procedural History
The case progressed through the following stages:
- 2023: The wife filed an application under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court, Raipur.
- 25 April 2024: The Family Court partly allowed the application and directed the husband to pay Rs. 7,000 per month as maintenance.
- 2024: The husband filed a Criminal Revision before the Chhattisgarh High Court, challenging the Family Court’s order.
Relief Sought
The husband sought the setting aside of the Family Court’s order, arguing that the wife had voluntarily and without sufficient cause left the matrimonial home, rendering her claim for maintenance infructuous.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the High Court was whether maintenance under Section 125 CrPC can be granted to a wife who resides separately from her husband without sufficient cause, particularly when the husband has limited financial means and the wife is financially independent.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant (Husband)
The husband’s counsel argued that:
- The Family Court failed to appreciate the admissions made by the wife in her cross-examination, where she admitted to leaving the matrimonial home voluntarily.
- The wife’s conduct, including frequent visits to her parental home against the husband’s objections, demonstrated her inability to adjust to rural life.
- The Family Court ignored the mandate of Section 125(4) CrPC, which bars maintenance if the wife lives separately without sufficient cause.
- The husband’s financial status - earning Rs. 2,000 - 2,500 per month as a labourer - was not adequately considered, while the wife’s income of Rs. 12,000 per month was overlooked.
- The order granting maintenance was perverse and unsupported by evidence, amounting to an abuse of the legal process.
For the Respondent (Wife)
The wife’s counsel contended that:
- The Family Court had considered all evidence and documents before passing the order.
- The husband’s financial status was irrelevant as the wife had established a prima facie case for maintenance.
- The allegations of mental unfitness and misconduct were unsubstantiated and intended to evade liability.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court examined the statutory framework of Section 125 CrPC, particularly sub-section (4), which states that no maintenance shall be granted if the wife lives separately without sufficient cause. The Court observed:
"The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that while deciding an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., maintenance cannot be granted in violation of the statutory conditions prescribed therein. Unless and until the wife establishes before the Court that she had sufficient reason to live separately from the husband, no maintenance could have been granted."
The Court further noted that the wife’s admission in cross-examination - that she had voluntarily left the matrimonial home - was a material fact that the Family Court overlooked. This admission, coupled with the lack of evidence supporting the wife’s allegations of ill-treatment, weakened her claim for maintenance.
The Court also emphasized the financial realities of the case. The husband, a labourer earning Rs. 2,000 - 2,500 per month, was responsible for maintaining his aged parents and other dependents. In contrast, the wife earned Rs. 12,000 per month and came from a financially stable family. The Court held that the Family Court’s order was mechanically passed without proper appreciation of these factors.
The Verdict
The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision, upholding the Family Court’s order granting maintenance. However, the High Court’s analysis reaffirmed the legal principle that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC cannot be granted if the wife lives separately without sufficient cause, and that courts must strictly adhere to the statutory conditions prescribed under the law.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Maintenance Claims Require Strict Statutory Compliance
Practitioners must ensure that maintenance claims under Section 125 CrPC strictly comply with the statutory conditions. Key takeaways include:
- The wife must prove sufficient cause for living separately. Voluntary separation without valid reasons disentitles her to maintenance.
- Courts are obligated to examine admissions and evidence critically. Mere allegations without substantiation are insufficient.
- Financial independence of the wife and the husband’s limited means are relevant factors in determining maintenance.
Admissions in Cross-Examination Are Binding
- Admissions made by the wife in cross-examination, such as voluntarily leaving the matrimonial home, can fatal to her claim for maintenance.
- Practitioners should highlight such admissions to challenge maintenance applications.
Financial Realities Must Be Considered
- Courts cannot ignore the financial status of both parties. A husband’s limited income and the wife’s financial independence are critical factors in maintenance disputes.
- The burden of proof lies on the wife to establish her entitlement to maintenance, including demonstrating her inability to maintain herself.
Procedural Irregularities Can Vitiate Orders
- Orders passed mechanically or without cogent reasoning are liable to be set aside on appeal.
- Practitioners should challenge perverse findings that lack evidentiary support or statutory compliance.
