S.125 CrPC Not Meant To Create An Army Of Idle People Waiting For Maintenance To Be Awarded From Income Of Other Spouse: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reiterated that provision of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC was not framed by the law makers to create an "army of idle or inactive people", waiting for maintenance to be awarded from the income of the other spouse."It is nowhere manifested that able and well qualified lady has to be always dependent upon her spouse for her maintenance,” Justice...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reiterated that provision of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC was not framed by the law makers to create an "army of idle or inactive people", waiting for maintenance to be awarded from the income of the other spouse.
"It is nowhere manifested that able and well qualified lady has to be always dependent upon her spouse for her maintenance,” Justice Prem Narayan Singh added while reducing the maintenance awarded to Petitioner's post-graduate estranged wife.
The petitioner contended that his wife is capable of maintaining herself since she held an M.Com. degree as well as worked in the film industry, and runs a dance class presently
The Court at the outset observed that possessing educational qualifications shall not disqualify a wife from receiving maintenance in case she is not gainfully employed. However, in cautiously added that the respondent had worked in the past and could earn an income, given her qualifications and capabilities.
It thus found the initial maintenance award of ₹25,000 per month to be on the higher side and reduced the same to ₹20,000 per month, taking into account her potential to earn some income. Court also retained ₹15,000 per month awarded to the daughter till she reaches the age of majority.
The petitioner, the husband, had filed a revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, claiming that Family Court's order of maintenance caused him significant financial hardship because he is supporting his father and brother.
The court noted that the petitioner, a senior manager at HDFC Bank, is financially capable of sustaining his family. It noted that the petitioner conceded during cross-examination that he has numerous assets, including a residence in Mumbai and a hefty FD.
Case title: A Versus N And Others
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION No. 301 of 2020
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 250