The High Court upheld a family court’s decision to dismiss a woman’s plea for interim or final maintenance from her husband.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently emphasized that the maintenance provision under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) should not be exploited by able-bodied wives opting to stay idle at home. Justice Nidhi Gupta made this observation while affirming a family court’s decision to deny a woman’s plea for interim or final maintenance from her husband.
“The purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to protect abandoned wives who are unable to maintain themselves from vagrancy and destitution. The said provision cannot be permitted to be misused to allow able bodied wives to sit idly at home while the husband works, earns, looks after the day to day, emotional, financial and physical requirements, and maintains the minor children as also his other dependent family members,” the Court observed.
The woman claimed that she was an unemployed villager, while her husband earned ₹12,000 per month working as a mason in a factory. Her counsel further argued that she had been subjected to dowry-related violence by her husband and in-laws, and that an FIR against them was still pending.
It was contended that the family court rejected her maintenance plea merely because she failed to provide information about the birth of her son and only mentioned her daughter.
Upon reviewing the case, the Court noted that the couple married in 2010 and had two children. Due to marital discord, the wife had been living separately since July 2014. She filed an application under Section 125 CrPC in November 2014, seeking maintenance from her husband.
“On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence led before it, the learned Family Court has returned the clear finding that it is the petitioner who had deserted the matrimonial home without sufficient cause,” the Court noted.
After examining her cross-examination before the trial court, the Court concluded that her own testimony revealed she had no intention of living with her husband.
The Court further observed that she had not filed any application for the custody of their minor children, who were between 1 and 3 years old when she left the matrimonial home.
“Clearly, therefore, under the above Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., the petitioner is not entitled to maintenance,” it said.
The Court further pointed out that there was no evidence to substantiate the claim that the husband earned ₹12,000 per month. Instead, it observed that the Family Court had found he was working in a private job with a monthly income of only ₹6,000-7,000.
“Besides that, the respondent is also maintaining the minor children along with his old, aged mother. On the other hand, the petitioner has no such responsibility. The petitioner is living separately at her parental home. Admittedly, the petitioner is able bodied. However, she claims to be not working,” it added.
The Court ruled that the primary responsibility for self-support lies with the petitioner, and consequently, dismissed her plea.
