The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, has upheld a Family Court’s decision granting monthly maintenance to a wife and her minor son, observing that a bald allegation of adultery without any supporting evidence amounts to mental cruelty upon the wife. The Court found no merit in the husband’s revision petition and affirmed the Family Court’s maintenance award under Section 125 CrPC.
Background:
The parties were married in March 2000 and have three children. After repeated incidents of alleged physical abuse under the influence of alcohol, the wife lodged a police complaint in March 2017. Thereafter, the parties began residing separately — with the son living with the wife and the daughters staying with the husband.
In April 2018, the wife filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance. The Family Court, by judgment dated 26 February 2024, directed the husband to pay ₹4,000 per month to the wife from the date of filing and ₹2,000 per month to the minor son for 11 months. The Court also awarded ₹10,000 towards litigation expenses.
Petitioner’s Submissions:
The husband challenged the judgment, alleging that the wife was living in an adulterous relationship and had deserted him, rendering her ineligible for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. He also pointed to alleged contradictions in her testimony and claimed that the cruelty allegations were false.
Respondent’s Submissions:
The wife’s counsel argued that the Family Court had correctly found no evidence to support the claim of adultery. It was also emphasized that the husband had not brought any material on record to disprove the wife’s financial dependency or justify denial of maintenance.
Court’s Analysis:
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that the Family Court had properly examined the case and found the husband’s allegations to be unsupported. During cross-examination, the wife categorically denied the claim of adultery, and no proof was submitted to establish it.
The Court observed:
“A husband’s bald allegation of adultery against his wife, unsupported by any evidence, can by itself constitute mental cruelty upon the wife.”
The Court further emphasized that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are summary in nature, aimed at providing immediate and effective relief. Citing Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha (2014) 16 SCC 715, the Court reiterated that maintenance is a measure of social justice to prevent destitution and vagrancy.
The Court also agreed with the Family Court’s assessment of income based on prevailing minimum wages, noting that the wife had no independent income and the husband had to care for two daughters living with him. The son attained majority 11 months after the petition, which was duly accounted for in the maintenance award.
Decision:
Finding no legal infirmity in the Family Court’s findings, the Delhi High Court dismissed the revision petition.
“This Court therefore finds this petition unmerited. The petition, along with pending application, is accordingly dismissed.”
