In a recent judicial pronouncement, the Allahabad High Court underscored the legal imperative imposed upon a husband, irrespective of his employment status, to provide financial support to his wife in accordance with the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The court expounded upon the principle that a husband, even if ostensibly unemployed, can be deemed capable of earning approximately Rs. 350-400 per day as an unskilled laborer.
This judicial deliberation unfolded within the ambit of a criminal revision petition challenging a Family Court’s order, which had partially granted the wife’s application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., directing the husband to make monthly payments of Rs. 2,000 to the wife.
The matrimonial alliance in question between the revisionist (husband) and opposite party no.2 (wife) was solemnized without the exchange of dowry. Subsequently, legal actions were instituted by the wife against the husband under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including sections 498-A, 323, 504, and 506, as well as section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Despite the husband securing bail, the wife refrained from returning to the marital domicile.
Simultaneously, the husband initiated legal proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, which remains pending. Meanwhile, the wife invoked relief under Section 125 Cr.P.C., a remedy granted by the lower court without due consideration of the ongoing Section 9 proceedings.
Counsel representing the husband contended that the wife, without justifiable cause, left the matrimonial abode and has been residing with her parents since January 28, 2016. Invoking Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., counsel argued that the wife, residing separately without sufficient cause or engaging in adultery, is barred from seeking maintenance.
Upon meticulous scrutiny of the submissions, the court noted a paucity of evidence supporting the wife’s contentions regarding the husband’s purported engagement in employment at a salt factory or the leasing of a Maruti Van. Nevertheless, the court discerned unequivocal evidence affirming the husband’s physical and economic capability, thereby imposing an obligation on him to provide maintenance to his wife.
Citing precedent, the court expounded that even in the absence of demonstrable income, the husband remains duty-bound to fulfill his obligation of providing maintenance. Dismissing allegations of adultery for want of evidentiary substantiation, the court recommended resorting to Section 127 Cr.P.C. should the husband endeavor to establish such claims.
Ultimately, the court, in light of the husband’s non-compliance with the financial obligations entailed by the maintenance order, adjudged the revision petition untenable and dismissed it accordingly.
