Wife Having Sufficient Cause To Reside Separately Not Automatically Entitled To Maintenance If She Can Support Herself: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while dismissing a wife's criminal revision against a Family Court order denying her maintenance, observed that merely because the wife has sufficient cause to reside separately, it does not by itself entitle her to maintenance, especially if she is found capable of maintaining herself. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 454]

The bench of Justice Alok Awasthi observed: 

"No perversity is demonstrated in the conclusion that the wife is not “unable to maintain herself” within the meaning of Section 125 of Cr.P.C./Section 144 of BNSS. The concurrent finding that she has sufficient cause to live separately does not, by itself, entitle her to maintenance when she is found capable of maintaining herself. The challenge on this score, therefore, fails". 

A criminal revision was filed by the wife and minor son challenging the order of the Family Court wherein their application seeking maintenance under Section 125 CrPC was partly allowed. The Family Court had directed the husband to pay ₹30,000 per month to the minor son, but no maintenance was granted to the wife. 

Per the facts, the couple got married in 2019 as per Hindu customs, and the minor son was born in 2022. The petitioners filed an application seeking ₹2,00,000 per month as maintenance, alleging cruelty, dowry demands, and physical and mental harassment. The respondent contested the claim and asserted that the wife is a qualified dentist capable of earning and maintaining herself. 

The bench noted that the High Court has limited revisional jurisdiction under the Family Courts Act. The court noted that the wife is a dentist and herself admitted to being qualified. The family court recorded that the wife claimed that the only reason she is not earning was due to the young age of the child. The family court noted that the wife has sufficient reason to reside separately in view of the FIR registered by her, claiming dowry and harassment.

The court approved the maintenance granted to the minor child. Thus, the court found no perversity in the family court order and therefore dismissed the criminal revision. 

For Petitioner: Advocate Arpit Singh 

For Respondent: Advocate Sudhanshu Vyas