Wife Concealing Her Income Ground To Deny Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the rejection of a wife's application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, holding that the petitioner had deliberately concealed her employment, income, and financial assets, and was therefore not entitled to claim maintenance.

Justice Alok Jain said, "Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been enacted with a specific purpose to protect women and children and to prevent vagrancy and destitution among them. It provides speedy remedy to the destituted and helpless women to establish their claim, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to prove that she is unable to maintain herself and her child but in the present case, the petitioner has concealed her employment and claimed his husband is earning handsome amount, her conduct in suppressing relevant information from the Court and the fact that she is not only qualified but is capable of earning good money."

The Court further observed that when a person approaches a Court, he/she 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 draught on the Court's time and public money in order to get his/her affairs settled in the manner, he or she desires.

The petition assailed the order passed by the Family Court, ,whereby the wife's application seeking maintenance was dismissed. The petitioner contended that the Family Court had erred in concluding that she had suppressed material facts relating to her employment and financial status.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that although she was earning some amount, the income was insufficient for her maintenance. It was further submitted that she was residing with her father and was entirely dependent upon him.

After examining the impugned order and the evidence on record, the Court found no merit in the petitioner's contentions. The Court noted that the petitioner had taken a plea that she had adopted a child (the daughter of her real sister), but in her cross-examination she admitted that the respondent had never consented to the adoption. The Court further observed that there was no documentary proof, ceremony, or official record to substantiate the alleged adoption.

The Court held that these admissions clearly demonstrated a mala fide attempt by the petitioner to mislead the Court and invoke undue sympathy.

Significantly, the petitioner also admitted to holding Kisan Vikas Patras and a Public Provident Fund account with balances exceeding ₹15 lakhs, apart from other bank accounts. She further acknowledged maintaining a separate salary account with Axis Bank but failed to disclose its balance or produce relevant documents despite specific suggestions being put to her, noted the judge.

The Court observed that these facts clearly established that the petitioner was not facing any immediate financial hardship warranting maintenance.

No Case Of Destitution Made Out

The High Court noted that the petitioner had been living separately since July 5, 2019, and had failed to demonstrate any financial distress during this period. It was also observed that the petitioner was a highly qualified woman, holding degrees of B.Ed., M.A. (Hindi), and M.A. (Art and Craft), and had been gainfully employed throughout.

The Court expressed doubt over the petitioner's claim that her income had reduced from ₹18,000 per month to ₹12,200 per month, terming it improbable and reflective of an attempt to misuse the judicial process to harass the respondent-husband.

Maintenance Not A Tool For Unjust Enrichment

Emphasising the object of Section 125 CrPC, the Court held that the provision is meant to prevent vagrancy and destitution and cannot be used as a tool for unjust enrichment. Observing the rising trend of frivolous maintenance litigation, the Court remarked that such misuse not only defeats the object of the law but also undermines a "woman's dignity and self-reliance."

In the light of above, the Court said, it "does not find any error in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court."

Mr. Ashish K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Title: Anu Aggarwal v. Sushant Aggarwal

Click here to read order