Reaffirming the Right to Maintenance: Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Family Court Order
Introduction
The law relating to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC has been rooted into the principles of social justice and seeks to prevent destitution and vagrancy. Despite its beneficial object, disputes frequently arise on questions of a wife’s entitlement, the relevance of her educational qualifications, and the impact of matrimonial discord on her right to maintenance. The decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Smt. Suman Verma and Another v. State of U.P. and Another1, assumes significance as it revisits these issues in the context of a criminal revision challenging an order of the Family Court which denied maintenance to the wife while granting a meagre amount to the minor child. The revision petition offers a nuanced reaffirmation of settled principles governing maintenance, while also highlighting the need for a humane and realistic approach in adjudicating such claims.
Table of Contents
Factual Background
The marriage between the revisionist wife and the opposite party, the husband, was solemnised in May 2006, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. From the wedlock, the son was born, who at the time of proceedings resides with his mother The wife alleged that she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty during her matrimonial life and was ultimately driven out of the matrimonial home along with her child. Although an earlier maintenance proceeding had been compromised on the husband’s assurance that he would maintain her properly, the marital relationship again deteriorated, leading to her ouster from the home in January 2020.
Consequently, the wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance for herself and her minor son, asserting that she had no independent source of income and was entirely dependent on her parental family. The husband denied the allegations of cruelty, disputed the wife’s financial incapacity, and even questioned the paternity of the child.
The revisionist wife preferred this criminal revision against the judgement of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandhshahr in an order dated 03.10.2024, whereby the application for maintenance towards the wife had been rejected, on the grounds that she had a qualification degree and had hidden this from the court and that she was living alone without any sufficient cause. Only an amount of Rs. 3000 per month had been directed to be paid towards their minor son (15 years old) Master Tilak Verma. The wife now seeks upto Rs. 15,000/- for herself and upto Rs. 10,000/- for the upkeep of their minor son.
Issues
- Whether the Family Court’s findings on the wife’s disentitlement to maintenance, the relevance of her educational qualifications in assessing her ability to maintain herself, and the adequacy of the maintenance awarded to the minor child were correct.
- Whether refusal by the wife to resume cohabitation pursuant to proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act could attract the disqualification contained under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.
Parties’ Submissions
The revisionist wife contends that the Family Court had erred in holding that the wife was living separately without sufficient cause. The wife asserted that she had been compelled to leave the matrimonial home due to cruelty and harassment and that the absence of criminal complaints could not be used to discredit her allegations. It was further argued that she had no independent income and that the husband had failed to prove any gainful employment on her part. Emphasis was placed on the husband’s stable government employment and his admitted salary, which, according to the revisionists, justified a higher quantum of maintenance.
The husband opposed the revision by alleging that the wife had abandoned him voluntarily and had threatened to implicate him and his family in false cases. He asserted that the wife was highly educated, possessed professional qualifications, and was earning through teaching and tailoring, thereby disentitling her to maintenance. He also attempted to deny the paternity of the minor child, contending that there had been no marital relations for several years.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court while acknowledging that the Family Court was found to be correct in recording that the revisionist wife had concealed material facts regarding her educational qualifications, the husband had also made false statements on affidavit denying fatherhood of the child to avoid paying maintenance towards his wife and child. The court found that there is no record of the wife having employment, and she only has an educational qualification, finding that the learned Judge of the Family Court totally misconstrued the evidence to arrive at their finding. The court relying on the case of Sunita Kachwaha and others vs. Anil Kachwaha2, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that merely because the wife was earning something, it would not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance, highlighting that the fact that the wife could work or could earn some money is not the end of the matter. Neither the mere potential to earn nor the actual earning, howsoever meagre it may be, is sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance.
The Court found fault with the Family Court’s approach in insisting on formal criminal complaints as proof of cruelty. It observed that matrimonial cruelty often remains undocumented and that the absence of criminal proceedings cannot, by itself, negate a wife’s claim of ill treatment. The husband’s conduct in denying the paternity of his own child was viewed as indicative of an attempt to evade his legal responsibilities.
Relying on the case of Rina Kumari Alias Rina Devi Alias Reena vs. Dinesh Kumar Mahto Alias Dinesh Kumar Mahato3, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the refusal of wife to stay away from her matrimonial home, could not be used against her as a disqualification under Section 125(4) CrPC. The Court categorically rejected the Family Court’s reliance on the wife’s refusal to resume cohabitation in proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act as a ground for disentitlement.
The Court was equally critical of the quantum of maintenance awarded to the minor child. Considering the husband’s admitted gross salary and the needs of an adolescent child, the amount of ₹3,000 per month was held to be wholly inadequate. The Court observed that artificial deductions and financial manoeuvres by the husband to reduce his apparent income could not be permitted to defeat the statutory right to maintenance.
Decision and Holding
The court held the impugned order to be erroneous in its application of law and suffered from serious factual infirmities. It concluded that the wife was entitled to maintenance and notwithstanding her educational qualifications and that the minor child’s right to adequate financial support had been overlooked. Consequently, the order of the Family Court was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh determination of maintenance in accordance with law. The Family Court was directed to pass a reasoned order within a stipulated time frame, keeping in view the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and the observations made by the High Court.
Conclusion
The decision serves as an important reaffirmation of the welfare-oriented character of Section 125 Cr.P.C. The judgment cautions courts against adopting a mechanical or overly technical approach while adjudicating maintenance claims and stresses the need to account for social realities and human conditions on a case-to-case basis. By rejecting the misuse of educational qualifications and speculative earning capacity as grounds for denial of maintenance, the Allahabad High Court has reinforced the principle that maintenance is not a matter of charity but a legal right flowing from marriage and parenthood.
For more details, write to us at: contact@indialaw.in
By entering the email address you agree to our Privacy Policy.
