The Allahabad High Court has held that a wife cannot be disqualified from claiming maintenance under Section 125(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) merely because she refused to live with her husband despite a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The Court further ruled that a wife’s educational qualifications or “potential to earn” are not sufficient grounds to deny her statutory right to maintenance.
The Bench of Justice Garima Prashad set aside a Family Court order that had rejected a wife’s maintenance claim on the grounds that she was living separately without sufficient cause and was capable of earning a livelihood.
Background of the Case
The revision petition was filed by the revisionist-wife and her minor son against the judgment and order dated October 3, 2024, passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr.
The Family Court had rejected the wife’s application for maintenance while directing the husband (Opposite Party No. 2) to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000 per month towards the maintenance of their minor son. The wife had sought an enhancement of maintenance to Rs. 15,000 per month for herself and Rs. 10,000 per month for her son.
According to the revisionist-wife, she was driven out of her matrimonial home in 2015 and again in January 2020 due to cruelty and demands for dowry. She submitted that she had no independent source of income and was financially dependent on her parents. The Family Court, however, denied her claim, reasoning that she had refused to return to the matrimonial home despite proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Restitution of Conjugal Rights) instituted by the husband. The Family Court also held that she had concealed her professional education (M.A. and ITI diploma) and was thus capable of maintaining herself.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the revisionist-wife argued that the Family Court wrongly held that she was living separately without sufficient cause. It was submitted that she was compelled to leave due to cruelty and harassment. The counsel emphasized that the husband, employed as a Class-IV employee earning approximately Rs. 48,350 per month (gross), had failed to produce any proof that the wife was gainfully employed.
Per contra, the counsel for the husband submitted that the wife had abandoned the matrimonial home of her own accord in 2007. The husband also denied the paternity of the minor son, claiming there had been no physical relationship between the parties since 2007. He argued that the wife was highly qualified, holding an M.A. degree and an ITI diploma in tailoring, and was earning money through teaching and tuitions.
Court’s Analysis
On Section 125(4) CrPC and Restitution of Conjugal Rights
The High Court observed that the Family Court erred in applying the disqualification under Section 125(4) CrPC solely based on the wife’s refusal to stay with the husband despite the restitution decree. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rina Kumari Alias Rina Devi Alias Reena vs. Dinesh Kumar Mahto Alias Dinesh Kumar Mahato (2025) 3 SCC 33, the Court stated:
“Refusal of wife to stay away from her matrimonial home, nothwithstanding the passing of restitution decree could not be used against her as disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.”
The Court further noted that the husband’s conduct in denying the paternity of the child amounted to cruelty, justifying her separate living.
“The opposite party No.2’s conduct in denying the fatherhood to the minor child would have been probably the last straw adding to the suffering due to the ill treatment in her matrimonial home.”
On Wife’s Capacity to Earn
The Court firmly rejected the husband’s plea that the wife was not entitled to maintenance because she was educated. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Sunita Kachwaha and others vs. Anil Kachwaha (2014) 16 SCC 715, the Bench reiterated that merely because a wife is qualified, it is not sufficient to hold that she is in a position to maintain herself.
Justice Prashad observed:
“The mere fact that she is a post graduate and has done ITI Diploma in tailoring by itself cannot lead to the conclusion that revisionist No.1/wife is working for gain. It is a matter of social reality that women devote themselves to domestic responsibilities and take care of children and are unable to be gainfully employed.”
The Court termed the husband’s reliance on the wife’s qualifications to evade liability as “misplaced” and noted that such assumptions are “insensitive to the social and emotional realities that women face.”
On Quantum of Maintenance
The Court criticized the Family Court for awarding a “meager amount” of Rs. 3,000 for the adolescent son. It also faulted the lower court for allowing the husband to deduct loan repayments (Rs. 35,124) from his gross salary to claim a lower net income. Referring to Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Court held that maintenance should ideally be 25% of the net salary, and statutory rights cannot be infringed by setting up a case of the wife’s capacity to earn.
Decision
The High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the impugned order dated October 3, 2024. The matter was remanded back to the Family Court, Bulandshahr, for a fresh determination of maintenance.
“It is accordingly held that both the revisionist No.1/wife as well as the minor son are equally entitled to maintenance from the opposite party No.2 and he is legally liable to maintain both his wife and minor son,” the Court directed.
The Family Court has been directed to pass a fresh, reasoned order within one month.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Smt. Suman Verma and another vs. State of U.P. and another
- Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 5971 of 2024
- Bench: Justice Garima Prashad
