The Calcutta High Court allowed a wife's revisional application, setting aside a magistrate's order that denied her maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The court held that suppression of material facts and lack of clean hands disentitle a litigant from equitable relief, directing a de novo trial after finding the wife had undisclosed joint account balances and misrepresented her financial distress.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The parties were married on 5 February 2017 under Hindu rites. Marital discord began soon after due to demands for gold ornaments, furniture and utensils, escalating to life threats and physical torture. On 25 February 2021 the petitioner left the matrimonial home and took shelter at her father's house, lodging a complaint at Dum Dum Police Station on 26 February 2021 against the respondent and his family. She attempted to join service as an assistant teacher for Rs. 6,000 per month but was prevented after marriage, leaving her without independent income. Her ailing father, who is medically unfit, further strained her finances.
Key Facts
- The respondent works as a web designer earning Rs. 45,000 per month, with additional fixed deposit income of Rs. 10,500 per month.
- Despite sufficient means, he paid only Rs. 2,000 per month towards maintenance, which the petitioner refused.
- In her Section 125 Cr.P.C application she claimed to be destitute, living on her father's charity, and having no source of income.
- During cross-examination she admitted holding a joint SBI account with the respondent, of which she is the first holder, with balances of Rs. 8,06,193/- on 7 October 2020, Rs. 7,10,057/- on 17 March 2021 and Rs. 6,40,084/- on 24 January 2022.
- She did not disclose this account in her affidavit of assets and liabilities, stating she acted on her advocate's advice.
- The respondent paid her Rs. 2,000 per month from March 2021 to October 2022.
- She alleged on oath that the respondent is impotent and the marriage was not consummated.
- She stated that after receiving a writ petition from her parents-in-law on 22 January 2021 she became traumatised and filed subsequent proceedings as a counter-blast.
- The Learned Magistrate passed an interim maintenance order of Rs. 5,000 per month in November 2022, later enhanced to Rs. 7,000 per month by an order dated 6 March 2024.
- The magistrate dismissed her maintenance prayer on 20 August 2024, prompting the present revisional application.
Procedural History
- 5 February 2017: Date of marriage.
- 25 February 2021: Petitioner left matrimonial home.
- 26 February 2021: Complaint filed at Dum Dum Police Station.
- April 3, 2021: Transfer of petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C from Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to 5th Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore.
- November 2022: Interim maintenance order of Rs. 5,000 per month passed.
- 6 March 2024: Order enhancing interim maintenance to Rs. 7,000 per month.
- 20 August 2024: Order dismissing maintenance petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
- 25 September 2026: Judgment reserved.
- 29 September 2026: Judgment pronounced and uploaded.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought to set aside the order dated 20 August 2024, to be permitted to file a fresh application under Section 125 Cr.P.C within four weeks, and to have any maintenance awarded effective from the date of filing such fresh application.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the wife's suppression of material facts and her failure to come to court with clean hands disentitle her to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C, despite her claim of destitution and lack of personal income. The court also had to consider the applicability of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C and whether the husband's failure to disclose his income affected the quantum of maintenance.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner's counsel argued that the magistrate acted with a pre-conceived notion, failed to appreciate her situation as a whole and did not scrutinise the evidence adduced. It was contended that the husband throughout flouted the interim maintenance order and did not file his affidavit of assets and liabilities as mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. Reliance was placed on Manish Jain v. Ak anksha Jain, Shailja v. Khobbanna, Sunit a Kachwaha v. Anil Kuchawa and the Rajnesh precedent to assert that mere possession of higher education or parents' wealth does not absolve the husband of his maintenance liability.
For the Respondent
The respondent's counsel submitted that the petitioner suppressed material facts, portraying herself as destitute while holding substantial joint account balances. It was argued that she filed the maintenance application as a counter-blast to a writ petition filed by her parents-in-law, and that her conduct amounted to an abuse of court process. The counsel maintained that the magistrate's order was well-reasoned and did not warrant interference, emphasizing that the husband's actual income could not be ascertained due to his non-disclosure and non-appearance.
The Court's Analysis
The court examined the doctrine of clean hands, rooted in the maxim “he who comes to equity must come with clean hands”, which mandates that a litigant must not represent facts incorrectly or suppress material facts. It held that any order obtained by fraud from a court of law can be set aside at any stage to be considered null and void. The court noted that the petitioner, while claiming to be a destitute lady on the verge of starvation, possessed a joint account balance of Rs. 6,40,084/- at the time of filing her Section 125 Cr.P.C application and failed to disclose this fact, thereby violating the clean hands principle.
"It is also settled law that any order obtained by fraud from a Court of law can be set aside at any stage to be considered as null and void."
The court further considered Section 125(4) Cr.P.C, which disentitles a wife from maintenance if she lives in adultery, refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason, or lives separately by mutual consent. Although the petitioner left the matrimonial home, the court found that her departure was prompted by trauma after receiving the writ petition from her parents-in-law, not by a voluntary refusal to cohabit. The court emphasized that Section 125 Cr.P.C is a measure of social justice enacted to alleviate the financial plight of destitute wives and children, and that the husband's liability to maintain his legally wedded wife persists irrespective of the wife's education or her parents' financial status, as affirmed in Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi and Samima Faruki v. Sahid Khan.
Given the suppression of facts and the lack of clean hands, the court concluded that the magistrate's order denying maintenance could not stand. It directed a de novo trial before the Learned Magistrate, requiring both parties to file affidavits of assets and liabilities without suppression, in accordance with the dictum of Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr., to arrive at a just conclusion about the parties' incomes and other relevant factors.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded in having the order dated 20 August 2024 set aside. The court directed her to file a fresh application under Section 125 Cr.P.C within a period of four weeks and to serve a copy thereof on the respondent. The Learned Court will dispose of the fresh application in accordance with law, and if the wife is found entitled to maintenance, the order will be effective from the date of filing the fresh application. No specific maintenance amount was awarded at this stage, but the interim maintenance previously fixed at Rs. 5,000 per month and later enhanced to Rs. 7,000 per month is subject to redetermination.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Clean Hands Is a Precondition for Equitable Relief
Litigants seeking maintenance or any equitable relief must disclose all material facts; suppression or misrepresentation will lead to dismissal of the claim as the court treats such orders as void ab initio.
Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C Requires Full Disclosure
Both spouses must file complete affidavits of assets and liabilities; failure to do so obstructs the court's ability to ascertain the true financial position and defeats the social justice objective of the provision.
Social Justice Not Defeated by Wife's Education or Parental Wealth
The husband's liability to maintain his wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C is not diminished by the wife's higher educational qualifications or her parents' financial standing; the obligation remains on the husband to prevent destitution.
