Acquittal In Section 498A IPC Case Not Ground To Deny Maintenance To Wife: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the acquittal of a husband in a cruelty case under Section 498A of the IPC cannot be a valid ground for him to deny maintenance to the wife and minor child, if they are unable to maintain themselves.
The bench of Justice Gajendra Singh clarified that Section 125(4) of CrPC, which lays grounds that disentitle a wife from maintenance, does not envisage that an acquittal in criminal proceedings initiated at the instance of the wife would disentitle her or minor child from maintenance.
Therefore, the bench held,
"the plea of acquittal from criminal prosecution under Section 498-A in itself is not a ground to deny the maintenance to the wife or minor children if it is proved that they are unable to maintain themselves and husband is having sufficient means and neglects of maintenance".
The case arose from a family court order granting maintenance of ₹7,000 to the wife and ₹3,000 to the minor child, which was challenged by both the husband and the wife.
The husband argued that since he was acquitted of the cruelty case under Section 498A IPC, the wife was not entitled to maintenance.
The bench, however, rejected the husband's contention, observing that Section 125 CrPC is a measure of 'social justice', designed to prevent destitution and vagrancy by ensuring financial support to dependents who are unable to maintain themselves. The provision is not punitive in nature but seeks to enforce a moral and legal obligation.
The court clarified that, "For maintenance, the wife and minor child have to prove only that they are unable to maintain themselves and person against whom the application has been preferred have sufficient means and he neglects or refuses to maintain and nothing more is to be proved by the applicants and for that purpose, no strict standard proof is required as proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. are summary in nature".
Therefore, the bench held that the outcome of a criminal case, whether acquittal or conviction, would have no bearing on determining entitlement to maintenance. The bench noted that there are no exceptions available to the husband/father if the above-stated are proved, except for Section 125(4) of CrPC.
Section 125(4) CrPC disentitles a wife from maintenance only if she is living in adultery, refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason or is living separately by mutual consent. However, the ground that the husband has been acquitted of a criminal case is not covered under the exceptions provided in Section 125(4) CrPC.
The bench highlighted, "The above provision of Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. and Section 144(4) of the BNSS does not envisages that acquittal of husband from criminal proceedings lodged on the report of the wife would provide any exception to deny the maintenance to the wife or minor child. The only effect may be that he may put the acquittal only for the purpose that he is not neglecting or refusing the wife to maintain".
Further, the court noted that acquittals may occur for various reasons, including lack of evidence or compromise between parties, and does not necessarily establish that the allegations were false or that the husband fulfilled his obligation to maintain.
In the present case, the court noted that the wife and minor child were unable to maintain themselves and that the husband, who had a steady income, had neglected his duty. Therefore, the court upheld the grant of maintenance and enhanced the amount for the child.
Case Title: H v W and S [2026:MPHC-IND: 10487]
For Husband: Advocates Sangeeta Choudhary and Yogendra Mehta
For Wife: Advocate Arpit Singh