The Allahabad High Court has set aside a Family Court’s maintenance order, holding that a wife who hides her employment and earnings cannot claim support under Section 125 CrPC. “No clean hands, no maintenance”, the Court said she deserves no sympathy.
The Allahabad High Court set-aside a maintenance order issued by the Family Court, ruling that a wife who conceals key information about her employment and earnings is not entitled to financial support under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).
Justice Madan Pal Singh, who led the bench, granted the criminal revision petition filed by the husband.
The Court noted that the wife did not approach the trial court with clean hands and failed to disclose complete and accurate facts.
The husband challenged the judgment and order dated February 17, 2024, from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budha Nagar, in Case No. 683 of 2019.
The Family Court had mandated the husband to pay Rs. 5,000 monthly to the wife as maintenance from the date she filed her application. The wife claimed to be illiterate, unemployed, and without any income source.
Sri Sujan Singh, counsel for the husband, argued that the wife had misrepresented her situation to the trial court. Although she claimed to be unemployed, she is actually a Post-Graduate and Web Designer and currently works as a Senior Sales Coordinator at Keiath Telecom Pvt. Ltd., earning Rs. 36,000 per month.
He emphasized that, according to Section 125 Cr.P.C., maintenance is granted only when a wife cannot sustain herself. He pointed out that the husband has the obligation to care for his elderly parents, while the wife’s affidavit claimed she had no financial obligations.
The husband contended that the Family Court’s maintenance order was issued merely to “balance the income between the parties,” despite the wife’s ample means.
The State’s learned A.G.A initially opposed this claim but did not dispute the fact that the wife is indeed earning a substantial salary.
Justice Madan Pal Singh reviewed the case records and noted that the wife’s employment status was evident in the impugned judgment. While she had claimed unemployment, she acknowledged during cross-examination that she earned Rs. 36,000 per month.
The Court referenced Section 125(1)(a) Cr.P.C., stating,
“From the perusal of Section 125 Cr.P.C., it is clear that maintenance can be awarded to the wife, when she is unable to maintain herself.”
Regarding the wife’s income, the Court remarked,
“In her cross-examination she has further admitted that she is earning Rs. 36,000/- per month and such amount, for a wife who has no other liability, cannot be said to be meagre, whereas the revisionist has the responsibility of maintaining his aged parents and other social obligations.”
The Court strongly criticized the wife’s suppression of facts, noting that she claimed to be illiterate and unemployed but only acknowledged her income when confronted with evidence from the husband.
Justice Singh highlighted the importance of the principle of “clean hands”,
“It is settled law that when a person approaches a Court, he should approach the Court not only with clean hands but also with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective. If a petitioner is guilty of suppression of very important fact his case cannot be considered on merits. Thus, a litigant is bound to make ‘full and true disclosure of facts’.”
The Court also cited a Supreme Court ruling in Rekha Sharad Ushir Vs. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd. (2025 SCC OnLine SC641), stating,
“It is settled law that a litigant who, while filing proceedings in the court, suppresses material facts or makes a false statement, cannot seek justice from the court, Cases of those litigants who have no regard for the truth and those who indulge in suppressing material facts need to be thrown out of the court.”
Ultimately, the High Court ruled that based on the suppression of facts and the wife’s financial independence, she was not eligible for maintenance.
The Court declared,
“Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 17.02.2024 passed by the Principle Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budha Nagar in Case No.683 of 2019… under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is hereby set aside.”
Thus, the criminal revision was granted.
Case Title: Ankit Saha vs. State of U.P. and Another
Read Attachment