Gujarat High Court upheld maintenance order, holding able-bodied husband must support ailing wife. Court ruled financial setbacks cannot override duty under Section 125 CrPC, affirming Rs 50,000 monthly payment ordered by Family Court.
The High Court of Gujarat dismissed a criminal revision filed by a husband challenging a maintenance order. The Court held that an “able-bodied” husband is legally and ethically bound to support his wife, particularly when she is suffering from a serious ailment such as cancer.
It also ruled that a fall in income or closure of a business does not relieve the husband of his duty under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Family Court’s direction to pay Rs 50,000 per month was affirmed.
Background of the Case
The marriage between the applicant (husband) and respondent No. 2 (wife) was solemnized in June 1995. In March 2019, the wife filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, alleging mental and physical harassment and failure to provide regular funds for daily necessities. She asserted that although the husband was a successful distributor for Canon and owned several properties, he neglected her.
During the proceedings, the wife was diagnosed with cancer, which required substantial medical expenditure. By an order dated December 10, 2021, the Family Court, Anand directed the husband to pay Rs 50,000 per month from the date of the application. Aggrieved, the husband approached the High Court in revision.
Contentions of Parties:
Husband’s Contentions
The husband argued that the maintenance amount was “exorbitant” and claimed that his business had been adversely affected after the COVID-19 period. He contended that the Family Court’s decision was premised on “assumptions and presumptions.” He further submitted that the wife was living with him when the application was filed and that he was already paying the educational expenses of their son studying abroad.
The husband also relied on his income tax returns, stating that his annual income was only around Rs 2.12 lakh to Rs 2.23 lakh, and submitted that his distributorship had been wound up.
Wife’s Contentions
The wife, through Advocate Darshit Brahmbhatt, emphasized the husband’s “recalcitrant attitude.” It was argued that the husband led a luxurious lifestyle, including frequent international travel to cities such as Dubai, Japan, Australia, and Bangkok. The wife’s side pointed out that the husband was a proprietor of Rutumn Enterprise, with a turnover running into crores, and that he allegedly withheld documents relating to Profit & Loss to avoid maintenance liability.
It was further submitted that while the husband had obtained medical insurance claims in connection with the wife’s treatment, he did not pass those funds on to her.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar noted that the marital relationship and the wife’s illness were not in dispute. The Court observed that the husband did not provide convincing proof that his business was closed or that his earning capacity had disappeared.
Regarding the husband’s reliance on income tax returns to show low income, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kiran Tomar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, stating:
“income tax returns do not necessarily furnish an accurate guide of real income… more particularly when the parties are engaged in a matrimonial conflict and there is a tendency to underestimate the income to avoid the liability.”
The High Court also invoked the “able-bodied” principle and relied on Anju Garg vs. Deepak Kumar Garg, observing:
“it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife… the husband was required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation.”
The Court further held that the wife’s educational qualifications could not be used to deny maintenance. It ruled that merely being “capable of earning” is not a basis to refuse support. Referring to Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai, the Court noted that the determining factor is whether the wife can maintain the same standard of living she enjoyed in the matrimonial home.
The Court also commented on the husband’s conduct, stating that he chose to go behind bars in other proceedings rather than complying with the maintenance requirement. It held that the Rs 50,000 award was “just and proper,” considering “spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living,” along with the wife’s cancer-related condition.
Decision
Finding no perversity or patent defect in the Family Court’s judgment, the High Court declined to interfere in revision. It held that the Family Judge had given well-founded reasons based on evidence on record and that no interference was warranted in revisional jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the revision application and vacated all interim stays. It directed the husband to comply with the maintenance order.
Case Title: Vasantbhai Premjibhai Vekariya vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. R/Criminal Revision Application No. 175 of 2022
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE