The Delhi High Court affirmed that a husband is obligated to provide maintenance for his wife and children, regardless of whether the wife is able-bodied and can earn a living.
The Court highlighted that the Petitioner not only disrespects his wife but also demeans all women by referring to her as a parasite and misusing the legal process.
The Court was reviewing a Criminal MC that contested an earlier ruling by the Additional Sessions Judge, which upheld the order from the Metropolitan Magistrate. The Magistrate had directed the Petitioner to pay ₹30,000 per month in maintenance to the respondent. Additionally, the Petitioner was ordered to compensate the respondent with ₹5 lakh for injuries, mental anguish, and emotional distress, as well as ₹3 lakh for other expenses, including ₹30,000 for legal costs.
The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed, “The fact that the Respondent is able bodied and can earn a livelihood does not absolve a husband not to provide maintenance to his wife and children. Indian women leave their jobs to look after the family, cater to the needs of their children, look after their husbands and his parents. The contention that the Respondent is only a parasite and is abusing the process of law is nothing but an insult not only to the Respondent herein but to the entire women kind.”
Advocate Sanjay Kumar Tiwary appeared for the Appellant.
Brief Facts-
The Respondent-wife sought maintenance, alleging that the Petitioner-husband had abused her and engaged in an extramarital affair. She claimed he had abandoned her and their two children without any financial support. She emphasized that the Petitioner was financially well-off, owning a business, properties, and vehicles, while she was unemployed and reliant on him. The Trial Court awarded her maintenance and compensation. The Court denied the Petitioner’s appeal, and the Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court’s ruling, rejecting his claims. The Petitioner is now contesting the Trial Court’s decision in this petition.
The Court observed, “The Apex Court has consistently upheld that the conceptualisation of Section 125 was meant to ameliorate the financial suffering of a woman who had left her matrimonial home; it is a means to secure the woman‟s sustenance, along with that of the children, if any. The statutory provision entails that if the husband has sufficient means, he is obligated to maintain his wife and children, and not shirk away from his moral and familial responsibilities.”
The Court mentioned the Apex Court decision in Apex Court in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) and quoted, “Whether the deserted wife was unable to maintain herself, has to be decided on the basis of the material placed on record. Where the personal income of the wife is insufficient she can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used to in the place of her husband…it was observed that the wife should be in a position to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but what is consistent with status of a family. The expression “unable to maintain herself” does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute before she can apply for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.”
The Court said that the fact that the Respondent/Wife is capable of earning cannot work to her detriment.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition.
