The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that a wife’s separation from her husband due to alleged dowry harassment and cruelty constitutes sufficient cause under Section 125 CrPC, rendering her eligible for maintenance regardless of the husband’s claims of voluntary desertion. The judgment underscores the evidentiary burden on the husband and the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The revisionist, Arvind Kumar, challenged the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by Smt. Rakhi Dixit, Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr, in Maintenance Case No. 785 of 2020, which directed him to pay Rs. 10,000 per month as maintenance to his wife, Smt. Rinki @ Rajani (opposite party no. 2), from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 CrPC. The revisionist contended that the Family Court erred in granting maintenance despite the wife residing separately without sufficient cause and in ignoring his financial constraints.
Key Facts
- The revisionist and opposite party no. 2 were married on an undisclosed date prior to 2020
- Opposite party no. 2 alleged sustained dowry harassment, including demands for Rs. 20 lakhs for house construction and Rs. 10 lakhs for loan repayment
- Her father paid Rs. 5 lakhs to the revisionist and his family, but harassment continued
- She was allegedly assaulted and forced to leave the matrimonial home on 17.02.2020
- She filed criminal complaints under Sections 498A and 406 IPC, and invoked Section 156(3) CrPC for investigation
- The revisionist filed a final report in one criminal case, but the wife filed objections thereto, which were not addressed by the Family Court
- The revisionist did not appear as a witness or adduce any evidence to rebut the wife’s allegations
- The revisionist claimed to be a Class-IV employee earning Rs. 28,000 per month after deductions, but his own affidavit disclosed monthly income of Rs. 50,000 as Sahayogi Rakshak in a Cooperative Bank at Meerut
- The wife’s educational qualification is Class-10; no evidence was produced to establish her independent income from tuition or tailoring
- The revisionist claimed mental illness but was shown to be regularly employed without interruption
Procedural History
- 2020: Maintenance petition filed by Smt. Rinki @ Rajani under Section 125 CrPC (Case No. 785 of 2020)
- 08.11.2024: Family Court ordered maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month from date of petition filing
- 23.04.2026: Criminal Revision No. 6485 of 2024 reserved for judgment
- 17.06.2026: Judgment delivered by the Allahabad High Court
The Parties' Positions
For the Revisionist
- The wife left the matrimonial home voluntarily without sufficient cause
- She is capable of maintaining herself through tuition or tailoring
- The maintenance order is excessive given his claimed income of Rs. 28,000 per month
- Proceedings were initiated as retaliation to matrimonial proceedings filed by him
- The wife’s criminal complaints were closed by final report, indicating lack of merit
- He was undergoing treatment for mental illness
For the Respondent/State
- The State did not file a counter affidavit or appear in court
- The learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) submitted only that the Family Court’s findings were based on evidence and should not be disturbed
Relief Sought
The revisionist sought quashing of the Family Court’s order dated 08.11.2024, setting aside the maintenance award of Rs. 10,000 per month, and a direction to reconsider the quantum of maintenance in light of his alleged financial incapacity and the wife’s alleged ability to support herself.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 125(4) CrPC bars maintenance to a wife who resides separately from her husband, and whether the Family Court erred in granting maintenance despite the husband’s failure to prove that the separation was without sufficient cause.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The revisionist relied on the assertion that the wife left the matrimonial home voluntarily and was capable of earning through tuition or tailoring. He contended that the Family Court failed to consider his claimed income of Rs. 28,000 per month and ignored his mental health condition. He argued that the wife’s criminal complaints were closed by final report, indicating lack of substance, and that the maintenance proceedings were retaliatory. He cited Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 only to challenge the income disclosure, but failed to rebut the actual figures he himself submitted.
For the Respondent/State
The State did not file a counter affidavit or appear in court. The learned A.G.A. merely submitted that the Family Court’s order was based on proper appreciation of evidence and should be upheld. No substantive legal argument was advanced on behalf of the State.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court emphasized that the Family Court’s findings were grounded in a meticulous evaluation of oral and documentary evidence. The court noted that the wife’s testimony regarding dowry harassment, assault, and forced departure on 17.02.2020 was consistent and corroborated by her initiation of criminal proceedings under Sections 498A and 406 IPC and Section 156(3) CrPC. The Family Court rightly declined to treat the final report as conclusive, given the wife’s filed objections.
"The revisionist did not enter the witness box. No evidence whatsoever was adduced by him to substantiate the allegations that opposite party no.2 had left the matrimonial home voluntarily or that she was maintaining illicit relations with any other person."
The Court held that the revisionist’s failure to depose or produce any evidence rendered his allegations mere assertions. The Family Court’s observation that the wife’s educational qualifications and lack of documented income rendered her unable to maintain herself was well-founded. The revisionist’s own affidavit, filed under Rajnesh v. Neha, disclosed an income of Rs. 50,000 per month, contradicting his claim of financial hardship.
The Court reiterated that revisional jurisdiction under Section 119 CrPC is not an appellate forum. Interference is permissible only if the order is perverse, illegal, or based on no evidence. The Family Court’s findings were neither arbitrary nor unsupported. The award of Rs. 10,000 per month was deemed reasonable in light of the husband’s income, social status, and cost of living.
The Court further clarified that separation due to cruelty constitutes sufficient cause under Section 125(4) CrPC, and the burden lies on the husband to prove otherwise. The absence of evidence from the husband was fatal to his case.
The Verdict
The revisionist’s challenge was dismissed. The Allahabad High Court upheld the Family Court’s order dated 08.11.2024 directing payment of Rs. 10,000 per month as maintenance to Smt. Rinki @ Rajani from the date of filing of the application. No modification of the quantum was ordered. Costs were not awarded. The order stands as final.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Separation Due to Cruelty Is Sufficient Cause Under Section 125 CrPC
- Practitioners must treat allegations of dowry harassment and domestic cruelty as prima facie sufficient cause for separation under Section 125 CrPC
- The burden shifts to the husband to prove voluntary desertion - mere assertion without evidence will not suffice
- Criminal complaints under Sections 498A/406 IPC and Section 156(3) CrPC, even if pending or objected to, support the wife’s claim of non-consensual separation
Evidentiary Failure by the Husband Is Fatal
- Failure to appear as a witness or produce any documentary evidence to rebut the wife’s claims renders allegations legally irrelevant
- Income disclosures under Rajnesh v. Neha must be truthful; self-serving affidavits contradicting actual income will be disregarded
- Claims of mental illness or financial incapacity require medical and financial documentation - mere assertions are insufficient
Revisional Jurisdiction Is Not a Re-trial
- High Courts must resist re-appreciating evidence in revision petitions under Section 119 CrPC
- Interference is warranted only if findings are perverse, illegal, or based on no evidence
- Family Courts are best positioned to assess credibility of witnesses in maintenance matters - their findings deserve deference
