In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has stated that the provision for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) should not be exploited by able-bodied wives unwilling to seek employment. The observation was made by Justice Nidhi Gupta while affirming a lower court’s decision to deny a woman’s request for maintenance from her husband.
Justice Gupta highlighted that Section 125 CrPC is designed to prevent vagrancy and destitution among abandoned wives who genuinely cannot support themselves. “This provision should not serve as a means for able-bodied individuals to avoid employment while depending solely on their spouses,” she remarked.
The case involved a woman from a rural background who claimed that she had no means of income and was dependent on her husband, a mason, who allegedly earned ₹12,000 per month. Despite these claims, the woman’s request for maintenance was initially rejected by the family court after discrepancies in her testimony regarding their children’s birthdates emerged.
The court noted that the woman had left the matrimonial home in July 2014, and in November of the same year, she filed for maintenance. The family court, after reviewing the evidence, concluded that she had deserted her home without sufficient cause, leading to the dismissal of her maintenance plea.
During her cross-examination, it was revealed that the woman had no intention of reconciling with her husband and had made no efforts to obtain custody of their minor children, who were between one and three years old at the time she left.
The high court also pointed out that the husband’s actual earnings were significantly less than claimed, amounting to only ₹6,000 to ₹7,000 a month, which he used to support their children and his elderly mother. “Given these circumstances, it is the primary responsibility of the petitioner to seek employment and support herself,” the court concluded, thereby rejecting her maintenance application.
