The Allahabad High Court has set aside a maintenance order passed by the Family Court, ruling that a wife who suppresses material facts regarding her employment and income does not deserve sympathy and is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).
The Bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh allowed the criminal revision petition filed by the husband, observing that the wife had not approached the trial court with “clean hands” and had failed to make a full and true disclosure of facts.
Background of the Case
The revisionist (husband) approached the High Court challenging the judgment and order dated February 17, 2024, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budha Nagar, in Case No. 683 of 2019. The Family Court had directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 5,000 per month to Opposite Party No. 2 (the wife) as maintenance allowance from the date of filing the application.
The wife had filed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming to be illiterate, unemployed, and having no source of income.
Arguments of the Parties
The learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Sujan Singh, submitted that Opposite Party No. 2 did not approach the trial court with clean hands. He argued that while she claimed to be unemployed, she is, in fact, a Post-Graduate and a Web Designer by qualification. The counsel stated she is working as a Senior Sales Coordinator in Keiath Telecom Pvt. Ltd., drawing a salary of Rs. 36,000 per month.
The counsel further argued that under Section 125 Cr.P.C., maintenance is awarded only when a wife is unable to maintain herself. It was highlighted that the revisionist has the responsibility of maintaining his aged parents, whereas the wife’s affidavit before the trial court listed her liabilities as “nil.” The revisionist contended that the trial court awarded maintenance merely to “balance the income between the parties,” despite the wife having sufficient means.
The learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the submission initially but could not dispute the fact that the Opposite Party No. 2 is a well-educated lady working as a Senior Sales Coordinator with a salary of Rs. 36,000 per month.
Opposite Party No. 2 did not appear to press the revision despite the case being called out.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Madan Pal Singh examined the record and noted that the impugned judgment itself reflected the wife’s employment status. The Court observed that while the wife claimed to be unemployed in her application and affidavit, she admitted during cross-examination that she was earning Rs. 36,000 per month.
The Court referred to 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 noted:
“…in her cross-examination she has further admitted that she is earning of 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 took serious objection to the suppression of facts by the wife. It was observed that in her application, she claimed to be illiterate and unemployed, but admitted her income only when confronted with documents filed by the revisionist.
Justice Singh emphasized the legal principle of approaching the court with 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 relied on the Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment in Rekha Sharad Ushir Vs. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd. (2025 SCC OnLine SC641), quoting:
“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.”
Decision
The High Court held that in view of the suppression of facts and the wife’s ability to maintain herself, she was not entitled to receive maintenance.
The Court ordered:
“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.”
The criminal revision was allowed.
