Able-Bodied Wife Can't Sit Idle To Misuse Maintenance Provision U/S 125 CrPC While Husband Is Looking After All Needs: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that the provision of Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, cannot be allowed to be misused by the able bodied wives to sit idly at home.

Justice Nidhi Gupta said, "The purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to protect abandoned wives who are unable to maintain themselves from vagrancy and destitution. The said provision cannot be permitted to be misused to allow able bodied wives to sit idly at home while the husband works, earns, looks after the day to day, emotional, financial, and physical requirements, and maintains the minor children as also his other dependent family members."

These observations were made while hearing the plea against the order of the Family Court whereby the the petition filed by the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was dismissed holding she is not entitled to final or interim maintenance.

Counsel for the wife submitted that she is a mere villager and the husband is working as a mason in a factory and earning Rs.12,000 per month.

It was submitted that during marriage life of the petitioner, she was beaten mercilessly by the husband and his family.

An FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 and 506 IPC in 2015 was also registered and pending. 

It was submitted that the plea for maintenance was rejected by the family court on the ground the petitioner was unable to give the particulars i.e. the date, time and birthplace of her first child in the petition under section 125 Cr.P.C and erroneous finding of the court that the wife is earning Rs.6-7 thousands per month.

After hearing the submissions and perusing the order passed by the Family Court, the Court noted that, the Family Court on the basis of evidence arrived at the conclusion that it is the wife who had deserted the matrimonial home without sufficient cause since 2014.

Perusing the record, the Court found that two children were born out of their wedlock who are admittedly in the care and custody of the husband.

Furthermore, the judge highlighted that the wife has not filed any application seeking custody of her minor children.

"It has also come on record that the minor children were aged between 1-3 years of age when the petitioner left the matrimonial home. Clearly, therefore, under the above Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., the petitioner is not entitled to maintenance," it added.

Justice Gupta pointed that, "It is the categoric finding of the learned Family Court that the respondent is doing private job in a factory and is earning only Rs.6-7 thousand per month. Besides that, the respondent is also maintaining the minor children along with his old, aged mother."

On the other hand, the wife has no such responsibility and living separately at her parental home, added the judge.

The Court observed that, "it is first and foremost duty of the petitioner to maintain herself. Especially keeping in mind, the fact that she is able-bodied. The purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to protect abandoned wives who are unable to maintain themselves from vagrancy and destitution."

Opining that the wife cannot be permitted to misuse the provision under Section 125 CrPC, the Court said, "no ground is made out that calls for interference in the impugned order" passed by the Family Court.

Consequently, the plea was dismissed.

Mr.Munish Kumar Garg, Advocate for the petitioners.

Title: XXX v. XXX

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 281