The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently said that a court can give more maintenance than what someone asks for in Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) cases. This happened when a person, who was contesting a maintenance order in the Indore Bench, had their request denied.
The Court also explained that the higher court shouldn’t interfere in a maintenance decision by the lower court just because the child involved became an adult after the legal process started.
The Bench of Justice Prakash Chandra Gupta observed, “However, it appears that in changed circumstances, the applicants have been rightly awarded maintenance amount, more than claimed amount”
Counsel Arihant Kumar Nahar appeared on behalf of the Applicants, comprising the Wife and minor Son, with Counsel VK Jain representing the Respondent, denoted as the Husband/Non-Applicant.
Initiation of the judicial proceedings occurred upon the filing of a maintenance application pursuant to Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) by the wife, asserting allegations of dowry demands and physical abuse perpetrated by the husband. The wife maintained a claim of no personal income, contrary to the husband’s reported monthly earnings of Rs. 8,000 in his capacity as a railway employee. The husband counter-argued, contending the wife’s voluntary departure from the matrimonial abode without justifiable cause and asserting her monthly income to be Rs. 10,000, derived from private tutoring and a beauty parlor.
Upon due consideration of the financial particulars, the Trial Court adjudicated the wife’s income at Rs. 3,000 per month and the husband’s net income at an excess of Rs. 21,000 per month. Consequently, the Trial Court rendered a judgment mandating a monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000 for the wife and Rs. 4,000 for their minor son. Dissatisfied with the verdict, the Husband sought recourse in the High Court, thereby challenging the Trial Court’s adjudication.
The High Court, in its scrutiny, observed the initial entitlement of the minor son to maintenance from the father under Section 125 of the CrPC. However, in light of the son attaining majority during the pendency of the revision petition, the husband is now vested with the prerogative to seek maintenance through the appropriate channels before the Trial Court.
Additionally, the court noted that the previously withdrawn application under Section 125 of the CrPC, unadjudicated on its merits, does not invoke the doctrine of Res Judicata. Furthermore, the Bench accorded credence to the veracity of the wife’s testimony, positing that the applicants demonstrated legitimate grounds for maintaining a separate residence from the husband. Given the wife’s financial constraints in supporting herself and the dependent child, juxtaposed with the husband’s gainful employment within the railway sector, the court expounded that the husband bears both a legal and moral obligation to furnish financial maintenance to the applicants.
“Apart from that if it is presumed that one sister and mother is dependant on non-applicant, then too the present applicants are wife and son of the present applicant. It also appears that the non-applicant works in railway department and has sufficient source of income and thus he has legal and moral obligation to maintain the applicants. Therefore, the learned trial court has rightly held that the non-applicant has sufficient source of income and hence is liable to maintain the applicants”, the Bench noted.
In deciding whether to give more maintenance than originally asked for, the Court noticed that the husband started earning a lot more after the request was made. So, the Court thought it made sense for the Trial Court to give a higher amount than what was initially asked. Because of this decision, the Court then said no to the Application.
