Unless Disqualified, Wife Has Absolute Right To Maintenance U/S 125 CrPC If Husband Is Healthy And Capable: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has recently held that a wife's right to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) from a capable, able bodied husband is absolute, provided there are no disqualifying factors.

The Court emphasized that a husband's claim of inability to pay maintenance due to unemployment, poor business conditions, responsibilities towards other family members, or medical expenses is insufficient to deny this right.

Justice Divyesh A Joshi, delivering the judgement, noted, “In many cases, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well or he is also having responsibility to maintain other family members as also having medical expenses, which has been pointed out by the applicant in the present case.”

In the case at hand, the husband argued that his wife's alleged desertion rendered her ineligible for maintenance under Section 125(4) of the CrPC. He also contended that his low income, additional family responsibilities, and medical expenses justified a reduction in the maintenance amount. The court rejected these arguments, underscoring the unequivocal nature of the wife's entitlement to maintenance.

Justice Joshi further clarified that these justifications are mere "bald excuses" with no legal standing. He stated,

“However, these are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right. ”

Moreover, Justice Joshi underscored the importance of a woman's right to maintenance when she is forced to leave her matrimonial home. He explained, “When the woman leaves the matrimonial home, the situation is quite different. She is deprived of many a comfort. Sometimes the faith in life reduces. Sometimes, she feels that she has lost the tenderest friend. There may be a feeling that her fearless courage has brought her the misfortune. At this stage, the only comfort that the law can impose is that the husband is bound to give monetary comfort. That is the only soothing legal balm, for she cannot be allowed to resign to destiny. Therefore, the lawful imposition for grant of maintenance allowance.”

The advocate for the petitioner – husband submitted that the petitioner married the respondent – wife in 2001. After the marriage, they resided together along with the petitioner's family. However, in 2009, the respondent – wife left the matrimonial home without any apparent reason and subsequently filed an application for maintenance before the Family Judge, Bhavnagar, requesting Rs. 20,000 per month. The advocate contended that the Judge, without properly considering the petitioner's income and other relevant documents, issued an order directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,000 per month, which was challenged by the petitioner before the High Court.

The advocate further argued that the Judge erred in awarding a maintenance amount that was too high for the petitioner, given his financial situation and other liabilities. The advocate asserted that the petitioner could not afford such a substantial amount and that there was no evidence of mental or physical harassment of the respondent – wife as alleged. According to the advocate, the respondent – wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home for reasons best known to her and had effectively deserted the petitioner. The petitioner had made efforts to bring her back, but she refused, a fact that was presented to the Judge but not properly considered, leading to an erroneous maintenance order.

Conversely, the advocate for the respondent – wife argued that the maintenance amount awarded was insufficient and should be increased, as it was too meager for the respondent – wife to survive on. The advocate admitted that after the marriage, the respondent resided with the petitioner and his family. However, the advocate claimed that the petitioner and his family subjected the respondent – wife to mental and physical harassment, which eventually led to her being deserted from the matrimonial home and filing the maintenance application.

The Court observed that the primary argument presented by the advocate for the husband, based on Section 125(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), was that the respondent-wife, having deserted the petitioner-husband, was not entitled to any maintenance, which had been granted by the impugned order. In addressing this submission, the Court referred to Section 125 of the CrPC, which deals with 'Order for maintenance of wives, children, and parents.'

The Court further noted that under the provisions of Section 125, “... when the wife is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent, in that event, the wife is not entitled to claim maintenance from her husband. However in the facts of the present case, as stated above, the respondent – wife is deserted from her matrimonial house and because of their mental and physical torture meted out to her, she was not ready to go and stay with the petitioner – husband and the said fact is stated by her in her cross-examination.”

The Court concluded that it was evident from the admitted facts that the petitioner-husband had deserted the wife, and therefore, the submission made by the advocate for the applicant based on Section 125(4) was "misconceived."

In relation to the income of the husband, the Court observed that the petitioner-husband had admitted to having a monthly income of approximately Rs. 25,000/-. The Court reiterated that there can be no doubt that an order under Section 125 of the CrPC can be issued if a person, despite having sufficient means, neglects or refuses to maintain his wife.

Finally, after considering the findings and conclusions of the Judge who issued the impugned order, the Court determined that there was no error in the decision that warranted any interference. As a result, the Court rejected the petition, concluding that it had failed.

Case Title: J Versus A & Anr.

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 106

Click Here To Download The Judgment