Welfare Scheme House Allotment To Wife Doesn't Disentitle Her From Claiming Maintenance U/S 125 CrPC: Allahabad High Court

A bench of Justice Garima Prashad also added that a husband cannot avoid his statutory obligation to maintain his wife merely by asserting that he is unemployed or earning a meagre income.

With these observations, the Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a husband, challenging a Family Court order directing him to pay Rs. 5,000/- as maintenance to his estranged wife (respondent no. 2).

It was the Revisionist-Husband's case that he is an illiterate person who was working as a driver and earning approximately Rs. 5,000/- per month and is presently unemployed.

It was further submitted that his wife, opposite party no. 2, earns through sewing and embroidery work and has also been allotted a house under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana.

According to the revisionist, he never neglected his wife and had made efforts for reconciliation.

It was, therefore, argued that the Family Court erred in awarding maintenance beyond the financial capacity of the revisionist

The wife, on the other hand, had pleaded before the Family Court that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment for additional dowry following their marriage in December 2016, which ultimately compelled her to leave her matrimonial home.

She asserted that despite possessing sufficient means, her husband had neglected and refused to maintain her.

Considering the contentions of the parties, Justice Prashad, at the outset, underscored that Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice intended to protect women from neglect and abandonment.

The Single Judge referred to the apex court's ruling in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai 2007, wherein it was held that the expression "unable to maintain herself" does not mean the wife must be absolutely destitute before claiming maintenance.

The bench also referred to Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena 2014 wherein the Supreme Court observed that the purpose of maintenance proceedings is to ensure that a wife is able to live with dignity and is not reduced to a state of financial deprivation.

Against the backdrop of these judgments, the High Court firmly rejected the husband's argument regarding the wife's alleged income and welfare benefits.

The Court observed that "mere assertions in pleadings, unsupported by satisfactory evidence, cannot be accepted as proof of financial independence".

On the issue of the allotment under the government housing scheme, the High Court observed thus:

"Likewise, allotment of a residential house under a welfare scheme cannot be treated as a source of livelihood disentitling a wife from claiming maintenance".

The High Court also rejected the husband's plea of unemployment, citing the Family Court's finding that he is a skilled driver and an able-bodied person capable of earning.

Thus, the bench concluded that the maintenance amount was modest and fully justified given the prevailing cost of living.

Justice Prashad also noted that a revisional court does not sit as a court of appeal to re-appreciate evidence merely because an alternative view is possible.

"Interference is warranted only where the findings suffer from manifest illegality, perversity or material irregularity resulting in miscarriage of justice. No such infirmity has been demonstrated in the present case", the bench noted as it dismissed the plea.