Maintenance A Recurring Entitlement; Wife Can Revive Old S. 125 CrPC Plea If Husband Breaches Settlement: Allahabad High Court

The High Court stressed that the right to maintenance is not a one-time bounty but an ambulatory, recurring entitlement which crystallises afresh upon each breach of obligation.

A bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh was essentially hearing a criminal revision plea filed by a husband challenging a Family Court order directing him to pay an amount of Rs 9K as maintenance to his wife.

It was his submission that the couple had earlier reached a compromise before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of the High Court in October 2021, and they had agreed to reside together, wherein it was also decided that they would withdraw all cases instituted against each other.

The husband contended that since his wife was alleging that he assaulted her and drove her away after this compromise, a completely new cause of action had arisen. He argued that she should have filed a fresh application for maintenance rather than continuing her older proceedings under S. 125 CrPC.

The High Court, however, rejected this contention as it observed that the liability to pay maintenance is a recurring and ongoing obligation, not a single event.

The Court noted that Section 125 of the CrPC is a measure of social legislation that must be construed liberally for the welfare and benefit of the wife and daughter.

The Court observed that it would be unreasonable to insist on filing successive applications when the liability to pay maintenance is a continuing one.

Justice Singh added that, since the husband had allegedly breached the conditions of the final settlement agreement, the wife was justified in pursuing the earlier proceedings she had initiated.

Regarding the question of the quantum of maintenance, the husband claimed he was a daily wage labourer facing financial hardship and that the Rs 9K monthly amount was highly excessive.

On the other hand, the wife said that her husband runs a brass business in Moradabad, though she could not produce documentary evidence to prove this claim.

In the absence of concrete proof regarding his business, the High Court relied on the presumption of his earning capability. Since the husband did not claim any physical incapacity, the Court observed that, being an able-bodied person, he cannot shirk his legal obligation to maintain his legally wedded wife.

The Court calculated his potential earnings as a labourer at Rs 700 per day and hence, it assumed his monthly income to be Rs 21,000. The Court noted that maintenance allowances can generally be granted to the extent of 25% of the husband's net income.

Thus, calculating 25% percent of the assessed Rs 21,000 income, the Court arrived at a figure of Rs 5,250.

The bench concluded that while a husband has a legal obligation to maintain his wife, the awarded amount must be reasonable and proportionate to his actual financial capacity.

Consequently, the High Court partly allowed the criminal revision and reduced the maintenance amount from Rs 9K to Rs 5,250 per month.