The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that maintenance awarded under Section 125 CrPC must reflect the father’s actual standard of living, particularly when minor children are enrolled in premium educational institutions. The judgment underscores that financial capacity, not mere declared income, determines the quantum of maintenance, especially for the education and welfare of daughters.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
Smt. Jannat Patel and her two minor daughters, Aayat and Inayat, filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance from their husband and father, Altaf Patel. The dispute arose after Altaf contracted a second marriage on 17.06.2023, following which Jannat was allegedly subjected to harassment and cruelty due to the birth of two daughters. A criminal complaint (FIR No. 124/2023) was lodged on 22.06.2023 at P.S. Mahila Thana, Indore, alleging dowry harassment and unlawful demands of Rs. 50 lakhs.
Key Facts
- Jannat and Altaf were married on 12.04.2017 under Muslim personal law.
- Aayat was born on 11.01.2019 and Inayat on 13.09.2021.
- Jannat was residing at her paternal home after being driven out of the matrimonial home.
- Altaf claimed to earn Rs. 7,000 per month as a labourer.
- Jannat alleged Altaf owned substantial agricultural land, a JCB machine, a dumper vehicle, multiple motor vehicles, and received rental income of Rs. 20,000 per day from the JCB.
- Exhibit-P/8 to P/26 included khasara extracts showing agricultural land holdings in the name of Altaf’s grandfather, Gani Mohammad, totaling over 2.5 hectares.
- Photographs (Exhibit-P/5 and P/6) depicted Altaf posing with luxury vehicles and branded motorcycles.
- Both children were enrolled at Mata Gujri Public School, Indore.
- Altaf had taken a loan of Rs. 35 lakhs from Yes Bank on 30.07.2021 to purchase the JCB machine.
Procedural History
- 12.04.2017: Marriage between Jannat and Altaf under Muslim law.
- 11.01.2019: Birth of daughter Aayat.
- 13.09.2021: Birth of daughter Inayat.
- 17.06.2023: Altaf contracted second marriage.
- 22.06.2023: FIR No. 124/2023 registered for dowry harassment.
- 26.07.2023: Maintenance application filed under Section 125 CrPC.
- 17.05.2024: Family Court ordered interim maintenance of Rs. 25,000 for Jannat and Rs. 10,000 each for the children.
- 26.07.2024: Court reminded Altaf to pay Rs. 6,30,000 in arrears; directed payment of Rs. 1 lakh with extended time.
- 21.08.2024, 10.09.2024, 21.10.2024: Multiple adjournments granted for compliance.
- 19.12.2024: Altaf failed to appear despite multiple notices; proceedings conducted ex parte.
- 09.07.2025: Family Court awarded Rs. 25,000/month to Jannat and Rs. 10,000/month each to the children, effective from 26.07.2023.
- 14.01.2026: Hearing before Madhya Pradesh High Court.
- 23.03.2026: Judgment delivered.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners (Jannat and Children)
- The maintenance awarded was inadequate given Altaf’s demonstrable assets and lifestyle.
- The children’s education at a premium school required higher financial support.
- Altaf’s claim of earning Rs. 7,000/month was contradicted by his ownership of expensive assets and a Rs. 35 lakh loan.
- The ex parte proceedings were justified due to his deliberate non-appearance over multiple hearings.
For the Respondent (Altaf)
- He is a labourer earning only Rs. 7,000/month.
- The agricultural land is in his grandfather’s name, not his own.
- The loan was taken by his grandfather, not him.
- The ex parte order is invalid as he was not given proper opportunity to defend himself.
- The wife is acting under influence of her family to extract money.
Relief Sought
- Jannat and children sought enhancement of maintenance to Rs. 50,000/month each for the children and Rs. 50,000/month for Jannat.
- Altaf sought setting aside or reduction of the maintenance order, arguing it was excessive and based on false allegations.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the quantum of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC must be determined solely by the husband’s declared income, or whether the court must consider his actual standard of living, asset ownership, and the educational needs of minor children, particularly when there is evidence of concealment of income.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on the documentary evidence - khasara extracts, photographs of luxury assets, and the bank loan record - to establish that Altaf’s declared income of Rs. 7,000/month was a facade. They cited Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) to argue that maintenance must reflect the standard of living enjoyed by the husband. They emphasized that Article 51(k) of the Constitution imposes a fundamental duty on parents to provide educational opportunities to children, and that the Family Court’s award of Rs. 10,000/month per child was insufficient for a child attending a private school in Indore.
For the Respondent
Altaf contended that the ex parte order was illegal because the Family Court failed to record satisfaction regarding his absence. He argued that ownership of land in his grandfather’s name could not be attributed to him, and that the loan was taken by his grandfather. He further claimed that the wife’s allegations were fabricated to pressure him into separation from his parents.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a detailed review of the procedural history and found that Altaf’s non-appearance was not accidental but systematic. He was present at multiple hearings, received clear reminders to pay interim maintenance, and was granted multiple extensions. His failure to appear on 19.12.2024, after repeated opportunities, justified the ex parte proceedings. The Court held that the negligence of counsel cannot be visited upon the client when the party has been given ample opportunity to appear.
The Court rejected Altaf’s claim of being a mere labourer earning Rs. 7,000/month. It noted that a person earning such a salary could not have taken a Rs. 35 lakh loan to purchase a JCB machine, nor could he afford luxury vehicles and a lifestyle depicted in the photographs. The ownership of agricultural land in his grandfather’s name was not a valid shield, as the Court observed that such assets were likely held in benami for Altaf’s benefit.
"Children deserves to the same standard as father enjoys. Amount of maintenance in favour of wife does not requires interference. But educational expenses requires interference for girl children."
The Court emphasized that Section 125 CrPC is a social welfare provision designed to prevent destitution. It held that the maintenance for minor children must be sufficient to ensure they are not deprived of the standard of living their father enjoys. The award of Rs. 10,000/month per child was deemed inadequate given their enrollment in a premium school and the father’s demonstrable affluence.
The Verdict
The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed Criminal Revision No. 5091/2025 filed by Altaf and partly allowed Criminal Revision No. 4191/2025 filed by Jannat and the children. The maintenance for each minor child, Aayat and Inayat, was enhanced from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 20,000 per month, effective from the date of application (26.07.2023). The maintenance for Jannat remained unchanged at Rs. 25,000 per month. The Court directed compliance within 8 weeks and ordered the record to be sent back to the Family Court.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Maintenance Must Reflect Actual Lifestyle, Not Declared Income
- Practitioners must now systematically collect and present evidence of hidden assets, loans, luxury possessions, and lifestyle indicators to challenge low-income claims in maintenance cases.
- Courts will no longer accept bare assertions of low income when contradicted by asset ownership or expenditure patterns.
Educational Needs of Minor Children Are Central to Section 125 Calculations
- Maintenance for children must be sufficient to cover school fees, uniforms, books, transportation, and extracurricular activities consistent with the father’s standard.
- Enrolment in private schools triggers a higher maintenance threshold, especially for daughters, in line with constitutional duties under Article 51(k).
Ex Parte Proceedings Are Valid When Absence Is Deliberate
-
Repeated adjournments and non-compliance with interim orders justify ex parte hearings.
-
Courts are empowered to draw adverse inferences from persistent non-appearance, even if counsel is absent.
-
Always request production of bank statements, loan documents, and property records in maintenance applications.
-
Use photographs and social media evidence to establish lifestyle in court.
-
Argue that Section 125 is not a ceiling but a floor for ensuring dignity and education.
