S. 125 CrPC | Earning Lady Able To Maintain Herself Not Entitled To Maintenance From Husband : Allahabad High Court

A bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh thus set aside a Family Court order directing a husband to pay Rs. 5K as maintenance to his wife merely to "balance the income" and to equalise status between the parties, even though the wife was earning Rs. 36K per month.

The Court also took exception to the fact that the wife had not approached the Court with "clean hands". It noted that she had initially claimed to be unemployed and illiterate, whereas the factual records showed that she was a postgraduate working as a Senior Sales Coordinator.

Briefly put, the Court was hearing a Criminal Revision filed by the husband (Revisionist) challenging the judgment and order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budha Nagar, directing him to pay maintenance allowance to the wife.

His counsel argued that the wife (opposite party no. 2) did not approach the trial court with clean hands.

It was submitted that in her application under Section 125 CrPC before the family court, she explicitly claimed to be unemployed; however, the evidence suggested that she is a Postgraduate and a Web Designer by qualification and is currently drawing a salary of Rs. 36,000 per month.

The counsel further contended that u/s 125 of the CrPC, maintenance could be granted to the wife only when she is unable to maintain herself, but this wasn't the case with the opposite party no. 2.

Against this backdrop, Justice Singh noted that under Section 125 CrPC, maintenance may be awarded to the wife when she is unable to maintain herself. But, in the present case, the wife, in her cross-examination and affidavit, had admitted to earning Rs. 36,000 per month.

The Court further noted that for a wife with no other liability, such an amount "cannot be said to be meagre". In contrast, the husband has the distinct responsibility of maintaining his aged parents and meeting other social obligations.

Consequently, the Court held: "This Court is of the view that as per the provision of Section 125(1)(a), the opposite party no. 2 is not entitled to get any maintenance from her husband/revisionist as she is an earning lady and able to maintain herself."

The Court also admonished the wife for suppressing material facts. The Court noted that in her initial application, the wife had described herself as an "illiterate and unemployed woman". However, when confronted with documents by the revisionist, she admitted her professional status and income during cross-examination.

"It is settled law that when a person approaches a Court, he should approach the Court not only with clean hands but also with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective...No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner he wishes," the bench remarked.

The Court added that the judicial process must never become an instrument of abuse. Thus, allowing the criminal revision, the High Court concluded that in view of the wife's sufficient means and her suppression of facts, she "does not deserve any sympathy."

The impugned judgment and order of the Family Court was thus, set aside.

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Shreesh Srivastava, Sujan Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Nandini Mishra