A bench of Justice Garima Prashad added that the income of the wife's parents cannot be treated as the income of the wife, and parental assistance is not a substitute for the legal obligation of the husband to maintain his wife.

The bench observed thus while allowing a criminal revision petition filed by a wife and her 2 minor children against a December 2023 order of the Family Court, Bulandshahr.

The Family Court had rejected the wife's claim for maintenance entirely, while awarding Rs 3,000 per month as maintenance to each child.

Case in brief

The revisionist-wife had initially filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance from her husband, alleging that after marriage, she was subjected to harassment, taunts and cruelty by him and his family members.

It was alleged that her husband (opposite party no. 2), a retired Army personnel, stopped maintaining marital relations with her and later informed her that he had married another woman.

Lastly, it was her case that in January 2020, she was assaulted and expelled from the matrimonial home along with the children, and since then, she has been residing at her parental home with no independent source of income and is dependent upon her parents.

On the other hand, the husband pleaded that the wife had left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and that she was allegedly maintaining illicit relations with certain persons.

He further stated that during his service in the Army, Rs. 11,303/- per month was deducted from his salary and paid to his wife and children until his retirement in November 2020.

Lastly, he claimed that after his retirement, he receives a pension of about Rs. 21,025/- per month and has no other source of income.

Considering the arguments of both parties, the Family Court disbelieved the wife's case on the ground that she could not prove specific incidents of dowry demand, assault or second marriage.

The Court further observed that the allegations made by both sides were unproven and that the wife had failed to establish cruelty.

On this basis, it concluded that she was residing separately without sufficient cause and was therefore not entitled to maintenance.

Contentions before the High Court

Before the High Court, it was the revisionist-wife's contention that the Family Court adopted an approach contrary to the very object of Section 125 CrPC as it decided the proceedings as if it were a full-fledged matrimonial trial on cruelty and adultery.

She argued that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are summary in nature and are intended to prevent destitution and to ensure basic financial security and sustenance for neglected dependents.

It was further submitted that the Family Court had itself recorded that the husband-opposite party no. 2 had not paid any maintenance to the wife and children after November, 2020, yet it erroneously concluded that the wife was not neglected and that she had no sufficient reason to reside separately.

High Court's observations

Taking into account the impugned judgment as well as the stance of both parties, the High Court observed that the reasoning adopted by the Family Court to deny maintenance to the wife was unsustainable.

Justice Prashad clarified that in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, the Court is not required to insist upon strict proof of cruelty as would be necessary in a criminal prosecution or in a contested matrimonial cause.

"The scope of enquiry is limited. The Court has to see whether the wife has a reasonable ground to live separately and whether the husband, despite having means, has neglected or refused to maintain her. The standard is not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Nor can the Court convert proceedings under Section 125 CrPC into a trial of each allegation and counter-allegation relating to matrimonial misconduct", the bench remarked.

The bench added that the admitted facts, that there was serious matrimonial discord between the parties, the wife and children were residing separately, and the husband admitted in cross-examination that after November 2020, he had not paid any maintenance, were sufficient to show that the wife was not residing separately without cause and was being neglected.

The Court also added that where the husband has initiated divorce proceedings, where the parties are admittedly living separately due to serious matrimonial discord, and where the wife has the custody of two minor children, it cannot be lightly concluded that she is living separately without sufficient cause.

On the husband's allegations of adultery against the wife, the bench remarked that no independent witness, document, or reliable material was produced to establish that she was living in adultery.

The Court stated that the bar under Section 125(4) CrPC is attracted only when the wife is proved to be living in adultery. It stressed that mere allegations, suspicion, or character assassination cannot deprive a wife of maintenance.

On the question of the income of the wife, the Court emphasized that an able-bodied husband cannot avoid his statutory obligation to maintain his wife and children merely by suppressing his income or by pointing to support being given to his wife by her parents.

The bench added that once the Court accepted that there was no evidence of sufficient independent income of the wife, there was no justification to deny maintenance to her.

The Court also found fault with the Family Court's award of Rs 3,000 per child per month and termed it "wholly inadequate, unrealistic".

It added that the amount was insufficient to cover the minimum reasonable expenditure of school-going children, such as food, clothing, education, books, transport, and medical needs.

Furthermore, because the husband failed to fully disclose his financial assets and withheld revenue records regarding family agricultural holdings and dairy activities, the Court drew an adverse inference against him for withholding material particulars, given that he was in exclusive possession of the best evidence.

Thus, modifying the impugned order, the High Court directed the husband to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs 5,000 to the wife. It also enhanced the maintenance amount for the two minor children to Rs 4,000 each.

The High Court further said that if the retired army personnel defaults on his payments, the wife and children can move an application before the competent court to directly seek deduction and recovery of the maintenance amount from his military pension and other lawful receivables.