In a recent judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court emphasized that Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is not meant to create an “army of idle people waiting for maintenance.” The court, presided over by Justice Prem Narayan Singh, made this observation while reducing the maintenance awarded to a wife in a matrimonial dispute. The court ruled that while a husband must provide financial support to his wife, the amount should be “reasonable and realistic,” considering the wife’s qualifications and her ability to earn.
Background of the Case:
The case involved a criminal revision petition filed by Amit Goyal (petitioner) challenging an order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore, which had awarded maintenance of ₹25,000 per month to his wife (respondent) and ₹15,000 per month for their daughter. The petitioner argued that the maintenance was excessive given that his wife was qualified, capable of earning, and had previously worked as an actress and model.
The respondent had filed an application under Section 125 CrPC, seeking financial support for herself and her daughter. The petitioner contested the maintenance award on the grounds that he was already facing financial hardships, supporting his family, and that his wife had the potential to sustain herself.
Key Legal Issues:
1. Section 125 CrPC – Purpose and Scope: The central legal issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 125 of the CrPC, which mandates that a husband should provide maintenance to his wife if she is unable to maintain herself. However, the court examined the extent to which this provision applies when the wife has qualifications and the ability to earn.
2. Financial Capability of the Wife: Another critical issue was whether the wife’s qualifications and previous work experience, including her modelling career and running a dance class, disqualified her from receiving maintenance or warranted a reduction in the amount.
3. Reasonableness of the Maintenance Amount: The court considered whether the amount awarded by the Family Court was excessive, especially considering the financial condition of the petitioner and the wife’s qualifications.
Court’s Observations and Judgment:
The Madhya Pradesh High Court reduced the maintenance awarded to the wife from ₹25,000 per month to ₹20,000 per month, citing that while a husband is obligated to support his wife, the maintenance must be “reasonable and realistic.” The court emphasized that maintenance should not be so high as to become oppressive for the husband, nor so low that it drives the wife to penury.
Justice Prem Narayan Singh observed:
“Section 125 CrPC has not been constituted to create an army of idle or inactive people waiting for maintenance to be awarded from the income of the other spouse. It is nowhere manifested that an able and well-qualified lady has to always depend upon her spouse for her maintenance.”
The court noted that the wife, having a Master’s degree in Commerce and prior experience in the film industry, was capable of earning an income. Therefore, the court found it appropriate to reduce the maintenance amount.
However, the court also acknowledged that a qualified woman should not automatically be denied maintenance, as her ability to find a stable income may still be uncertain. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Sunita Kachwaha vs. Anil Kachwaha, the court reiterated that even well-educated women may require financial support from their husbands, as long as they are not employed.
The court upheld the maintenance awarded to the couple’s daughter, ensuring that the child continues to receive ₹15,000 per month until she reaches the age of majority.
