The Madras High Court ruled that a wife’s right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is not absolute, especially when the husband is a senior citizen with medical and financial constraints, emphasizing a balance of obligations under the law.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHENNAI: In a recent judgment, the Madras High Court at the Madurai Bench refused to grant maintenance to a woman, emphasizing the need to balance the rights of a dependent spouse with the protections afforded to senior citizens.
Background of the Case
The case involved Menaka and her two daughters, who filed a petition seeking Rs. 30,000 per month in maintenance from her husband, Murugan, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Menaka argued that her husband, a retired employee of NTC Mills in Kamuthakudi, had received Rs. 15 lakh as retirement benefits and owned immovable properties. She claimed he had refused to contribute toward her maintenance or the marriage expenses of their younger daughter.
Murugan, 65, countered that he was bedridden due to paralysis and required at least Rs. 5,000 per month for medical care. He said he had been abandoned by his family and was struggling to defend multiple civil and criminal cases, including suits filed by his wife. He submitted,
“I am a senior citizen with serious medical ailments and need support myself; I cannot bear the additional burden of maintenance.”
Court’s Observations
Justice L. Victoria Gowri noted that while Section 125 CrPC aims to prevent destitution, it cannot be used to overburden an aged and medically incapacitated spouse. The court observed,
“The entitlement of the wife is subject to proof of neglect or refusal on the part of the husband and also dependent upon his financial capacity.”
The judgment also highlighted Murugan’s rights under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Justice Gowri remarked,
“Courts cannot ignore the balance of obligations under both statutes – while a wife has rights under Section 125 Cr.P.C., a senior citizen also has a statutory right to maintenance and medical care under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.”
The court noted that Murugan’s children, including the petitioners, had neglected him despite his medical needs.
The court further pointed out that the combination of Murugan’s pension and partial retirement benefits (Rs. 3 lakh received so far) was adequate for his survival but insufficient to pay the additional maintenance claimed by his wife.
Upholding the Magistrate’s order, the High Court dismissed Menaka’s revision petition. The court concluded:
- Menaka and her daughters were able to sustain themselves.
- Murugan, due to age, illness, and financial constraints, could not be burdened with additional maintenance.
Justice Gowri stated,
“The learned Trial Court has rightly concluded that the first petitioner is able to sustain herself with the support available and the respondent, being a senior citizen with serious medical ailments, cannot be burdened with the additional responsibility of paying maintenance.”
Appearance:
Petitioners: Mr. P. R. Prithiviraj
Respondents: Mr. Karuppasamy Pandian For Mr. S. Srinivasa Raghavan
Case Title:
Menaka and Ors vs. Murugan
Crl. R. C.(MD)No.417 of 2024
READ ORDER
