The Allahabad High Court has ruled that summary proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) do not require the strict proof of cruelty typically expected in criminal prosecutions or full-scale matrimonial trials. Setting aside an order passed by the Bulandshahr Family Court, Justice Garima Prashad allowed a criminal revision petition, holding that the estranged wife is legally entitled to maintenance and significantly enhancing the monthly maintenance amount awarded to her two minor children.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a marriage solemnized on February 8, 2007, from which two children were born. The wife alleged that she was subjected to harassment, taunts, and cruelty by her husband and his family members, and that she was stopped from maintaining marital relations. She further alleged that her husband informed her that he had married another woman, and that on January 10, 2020, she was assaulted and expelled from the matrimonial home along with their children. Since then, she has resided at her parental home without any independent source of income.
The husband, a retired Army personnel, denied the allegations, claiming that the wife had left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and was maintaining illicit relations with other persons. He contended that during his military service, a monthly deduction of Rs. 11,303 was paid to the wife and children until his retirement on November 30, 2020, after which he survived primarily on a pension of Rs. 21,025.
The Family Court of Bulandshahr, in its judgment dated December 14, 2023, rejected the wife’s maintenance claim entirely on the grounds that she could not strictly prove the allegations of cruelty or the husband’s second marriage. It also limited the maintenance of the two minor children to Rs. 3,000 per month each. Aggrieved by this decision, the wife and children filed a criminal revision before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the revisionists argued that the Family Court treated the summary proceedings under Section 125 CrPC as if they were a full-fledged matrimonial trial on cruelty and adultery. He submitted that despite admitting he had not paid any maintenance since November 2020, the husband was exonerated of neglect. He further argued that the Rs. 3,000 monthly maintenance awarded to the school-going children was unrealistically low and directly violated the principles established by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha.
Conversely, the counsel representing the husband supported the Family Court’s decision. She argued that the wife failed to establish any specific instances of cruelty, dowry demand, or the alleged second marriage, meaning she resided separately without sufficient cause. She further argued that the husband was a retired soldier surviving on his pension and that the amount awarded by the Family Court was reasonable.
The Court’s Analysis
Reviewing the record, Justice Garima Prashad noted multiple fundamental legal errors in the Family Court’s approach. The High Court clarified that the standard of proof required in Section 125 CrPC proceedings is not “beyond reasonable doubt” and that the trial court placed an unduly heavy burden on the wife. Highlighting this legal distinction, the Court observed:
“In proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to insist upon strict proof of cruelty as would be necessary in a criminal prosecution or in a contested matrimonial cause.”
The Court went on to define the exact scope of such proceedings, stating:
“The scope of enquiry is limited. The Court has to see whether the wife has a reasonable ground to live separately and whether the husband, despite having means, has neglected or refused to maintain her.”
The High Court observed that the ongoing divorce proceedings initiated by the husband, the setting aside of an ex parte divorce decree he had obtained, and his admission that he stopped paying any maintenance after November 2020 were sufficient to demonstrate both neglect and a justifiable reason for separate living.
Addressing the husband’s unproven allegations of illicit relations against the wife, the Court remarked:
“The bar under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. is attracted only when the wife is proved to be living in adultery. Mere allegations, suspicion or character assassination cannot deprive a wife of maintenance.”
The Court also rejected the argument that the wife could be denied maintenance because her father was supporting her, holding:
“A wife cannot be denied maintenance merely because her parents are supporting her during distress. Maintenance by parents is not a substitute for the legal obligation of the husband.”
Regarding the husband’s financial status, the Court drew an adverse inference against him for failing to disclose his complete agricultural holdings and assets, noting that an able-bodied husband cannot avoid his statutory duty. Discussing the principles of quantum determination from Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari and Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, the Court pointed out that while 25% of the net salary serves as a benchmark for the wife, maintenance must be calculated realistically based on the status and basic needs of the dependents. The Court agreed that Rs. 3,000 per month for school-going children was completely inadequate under modern economic conditions and directly contradicted the Supreme Court guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha.
The Decision
The High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the Family Court’s findings denying maintenance to the wife. Recognizing the husband’s regular military pension and family-based agricultural support, the Court directed him to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000 to the wife and enhanced the maintenance of both minor children to Rs. 4,000 each, bringing the total monthly payment to Rs. 13,000.
This maintenance is payable from the date of the original application, February 2, 2021, and must be cleared by the 10th of every calendar month. The Court ordered that the accumulated arrears since 2021, after adjusting any previous payments, must be cleared by the husband in twelve equal monthly installments. The Court also provided that any default by the husband would allow the revisionists to seek enforcement and direct recovery from his pension and other lawful receivables.
Case Details:
Case Title: Smt. Reenu and 2 others v. State of UP and another
Case No.: CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1370 of 2024
Bench: Justice Garima Prashad
Date: June 17, 2026
