The Allahabad High Court ruled that a wife cannot be denied maintenance under Section 125 CrPC merely because her parents are supporting her. The Court held that parental assistance does not absolve a husband of his statutory obligation to maintain his wife.
In a significant decision reaffirming the purpose of maintenance laws, the Allahabad High Court has held that a wife cannot be denied maintenance under Section 125 CrPC simply because her parents are supporting her during difficult times. The Court clarified that a wife’s parental help does not replace the husband’s statutory obligation to maintain her.
Justice Garima Prashad observed that the financial support provided by a wife’s parents cannot be treated as the wife’s own income. She further noted that an able-bodied husband cannot escape his legal duty by pointing to the assistance extended by the wife’s family.
The ruling was delivered while allowing a criminal revision petition filed by the wife and her two minor children, challenging a December 2023 order of the Family Court, Bulandshahr. The Family Court had refused maintenance to the wife altogether, while awarding Rs.3,000 per month each to the two children.
The wife had approached the Family Court under Section 125 CrPC, alleging that after marriage she was subjected to harassment, cruelty, and humiliation by her husband and his family members. She claimed that her husband, a retired Army personnel, stopped maintaining marital relations and later told her that he had married another woman.
She further stated that in January 2020 she was assaulted and forcibly driven out of the matrimonial home along with her children. Since then, she has been living at her parental home and has no independent source of income.
The husband denied these allegations and argued that the wife left the matrimonial home without adequate reason. He also alleged that she was involved with other persons.
He submitted that during his Army service, Rs.11,303 per month was deducted from his salary and paid to his wife and children until his retirement in November 2020. After retirement, he claimed that he survived only on a pension of approximately Rs.21,025 per month.
The Family Court rejected the wife’s request for maintenance, concluding that she failed to establish evidence of dowry demand, assault, cruelty, or proof of the alleged second marriage. It held that both sides made unverified allegations and that the wife did not demonstrate sufficient grounds for living separately from her husband.
Accordingly, the wife’s maintenance was denied, though the children were granted Rs.3,000 per month each.
Setting aside the Family Court’s approach, the High Court emphasized that Section 125 CrPC proceedings are summary in nature and are meant to prevent destitution rather than conduct a detailed matrimonial trial.
The Court stated that the inquiry under Section 125 CrPC is limited to whether the wife has a reasonable basis to live separately and whether the husband despite having sufficient means has neglected or refused to maintain her.
Justice Prashad noted that the admitted facts reflected serious matrimonial discord. She also pointed out that the husband admitted he had not paid any maintenance after November 2020, which, in the Court’s view, was enough to show neglect.
The Court further held that where divorce proceedings are pending, the spouses live separately due to serious disputes, and the wife has custody of two minor children, it cannot be lightly presumed that she is residing separately without sufficient cause.
The Court rejected the husband’s claims of adultery, noting that no independent witnesses, documentary evidence, or reliable material were produced to support such allegations.
The bench reiterated that the bar under Section 125(4) CrPC applies only if adultery is actually proved. Mere suspicion, allegations, or attempts to malign the wife cannot deprive her of maintenance.
The Court also made it clear that financial support from the wife’s parents during periods of hardship cannot be treated as an alternative source of income that would justify refusing maintenance.
It held that unless there is proof the wife has adequate independent earnings, there is no legal basis to deny maintenance. The Court stressed that a husband cannot avoid his responsibility by claiming that the wife’s parents are meeting her expenses.
The High Court found the maintenance awarded to the children by the Family Court to be wholly inadequate and unrealistic, observing that Rs.3,000 per month could not reasonably cover the expenses of school-going children, including food, clothing, education, books, transportation, and medical needs.
The Court also drew an adverse inference against the husband for not disclosing full details of his financial assets, agricultural holdings, and dairy activities.
The High Court modified the Family Court’s order and directed the husband to pay:
- Rs.5,000 per month to the wife
- Rs.4,000 per month each to the two minor children
The Court further held that in case of default, the wife and children may pursue direct recovery of the maintenance amount from the husband’s military pension and other lawful receivables.
The decision reinforces that Section 125 CrPC is a social welfare measure intended to prevent destitution and ensure financial security to neglected spouses and children. It also clearly communicates that temporary parental support cannot absolve a husband of his legal duty to maintain his wife.
Case Title: Vikas Sharma vs. State of U.P. and Another