Section 125 CrPC | Husband’s Deliberate Absence Does Not Nullify Wife’s Maintenance Right : Bombay HC Upholds Ex Parte Order

The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that a husband's failure to prosecute maintenance proceedings does not defeat a wife's right to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court dismissed a revision application challenging an ex parte maintenance order, holding that the husband's deliberate absence and failure to contest the wife's evidence justified the Family Court's decision to grant Rs. 7,000 per month as maintenance.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The applicant, Sudhir Avchit Bhalerao, challenged an ex parte maintenance order dated 06 June 2022 passed by the Family Court, Jalgaon, in Petition E-127 of 2021. The order directed him to pay Rs. 7,000 per month as maintenance to his wife, Respondent No. 2, under Section 125 CrPC. The applicant contended that the order was illegal and perverse, warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.

Key Facts

• The wife filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court, Jalgaon.
• The applicant, despite service of summons, remained absent before the Family Court, leading to ex parte proceedings.
• The Family Court relied on the wife's unchallenged oral testimony and documentary evidence, including the applicant's salary certificate for March 2022, which showed a total salary of Rs. 33,798 per month.
• The wife, having no independent source of income, was granted maintenance of Rs. 7,000 per month.
• The applicant failed to appear before the High Court on multiple occasions, including 20 April 2026 and 29 April 2026, despite adjournments granted for passing orders.

Procedural History

• 2018: The wife began residing separately from the applicant.
• Date not specified: Wife filed Petition E-127 of 2021 before the Family Court, Jalgaon, seeking maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
• 06.06.2022: Family Court passed ex parte order granting Rs. 7,000 per month as maintenance to the wife.
• Date not specified: Applicant filed Criminal Revision Application No. 270 of 2022 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench.
• 20.04.2026: Matter called out; no appearance for the applicant. Adjourned to 29 April 2026 for orders.
• 29.04.2026: Applicant again absent. High Court dismissed the revision application.

Relief Sought

The applicant sought quashing of the Family Court's order dated 06 June 2022, arguing that it was illegal and perverse. The wife, in response, sought confirmation of the maintenance order.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the husband's deliberate absence and failure to prosecute the matter before the Family Court and the High Court could defeat the wife's right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, particularly when the evidence on record supported her claim.

Arguments Presented

For the Applicant

The applicant's counsel, though absent during the hearings, presumably argued in the revision application that:

• The impugned order was passed ex parte without proper appreciation of evidence.
• The order was illegal or perverse, warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.

For the Respondents

For Respondent No. 1 (State)

Mr. S. N. Morampalle, learned APP, contended that:

• The applicant's absence before the Family Court and the High Court demonstrated a lack of interest in prosecuting the matter.
• The Family Court's order was based on unchallenged evidence, including the wife's testimony and the applicant's salary certificate.

For Respondent No. 2 (Wife)

Mr. Potdar Eklavya Sandesh, learned counsel for the wife, argued that:

• The applicant's deliberate absence amounted to protracting the matter and creating hurdles in the dispensation of justice.
• The Family Court's order was just and proper, as it relied on uncontroverted evidence establishing the wife's entitlement to maintenance.

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the applicant's conduct and the merits of the Family Court's order in light of Section 125 CrPC, a social welfare provision aimed at preventing destitution. Key observations included:

1. Applicant's Conduct: The Court noted that the applicant remained absent before the Family Court despite service of summons, leading to ex parte proceedings. Similarly, the applicant failed to appear before the High Court on multiple occasions, indicating an intent to protract the matter rather than prosecute it. The Court held that such conduct amounted to creating hurdles in the dispensation of justice.

2. Evidence Appreciation: The Family Court relied on the wife's unchallenged oral testimony and documentary evidence, including the applicant's salary certificate, which showed a monthly salary of Rs. 33,798. The Court observed that the applicant's absence prevented him from contesting this evidence, and thus, the Family Court's findings were justified.

3. Purpose of Section 125 CrPC: The Court emphasized that Section 125 CrPC is a social welfare provision designed to achieve social justice, as enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The provision must receive a liberal and beneficial interpretation to fulfill its objective of preventing destitution.

   "The purposive interpretation of Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. needs to be taken into consideration while dealing with applications filed by a destitute wife, helpless children, or parents under this provision. The purpose is to achieve social justice, which is the constitutional vision enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India."

4. Legal and Moral Duty: The Court reiterated that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is not a benefit but a legal and moral duty owed by the husband to his wife. The husband cannot plead financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning. The Court noted that the wife had been residing separately since 2018 without any maintenance, which was sufficient grounds for granting maintenance.

5. No Illegality or Perversity: The Court found no illegality or perversity in the Family Court's order. The order was based on proper appreciation of evidence and aligned with the objectives of Section 125 CrPC.

The Verdict

The Bombay High Court dismissed the applicant's Criminal Revision Application No. 270 of 2022. The Court upheld the Family Court's order dated 06 June 2022, directing the applicant to pay Rs. 7,000 per month as maintenance to Respondent No. 2. Additionally, the Court directed the applicant to deposit the entire arrears of maintenance, if not already paid, within 60 days from 29 April 2026. Failure to comply would entitle the wife to take appropriate legal steps.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Non-Prosecution Does Not Negate Maintenance Rights

• Practitioners must advise clients that Section 125 CrPC is a social welfare provision, and deliberate absence or non-prosecution of proceedings will not defeat a wife's right to maintenance if evidence supports her claim.
• Courts are likely to rely on unchallenged evidence, such as salary certificates and oral testimony, to grant maintenance in ex parte proceedings.

Liberal Interpretation of Section 125 CrPC

• Section 125 CrPC must be interpreted liberally to achieve its objective of preventing destitution. Courts will not entertain technical defenses, such as financial constraints, if the husband is capable of earning.
• The provision is not merely a benefit but a legal and moral duty, and failure to fulfill this duty can lead to maintenance orders even in the absence of the husband.

Compliance with Court Directions Is Mandatory

• Husbands must comply with maintenance orders, including payment of arrears within the stipulated timeline. Failure to do so can result in further legal action by the wife, as the Court's directions are binding and enforceable.
• The Court's emphasis on the husband's conduct underscores the importance of actively participating in proceedings to avoid adverse orders.