Prayagraj: Observing that financial support extended by a woman’s parents during times of distress does not absolve the husband’s statutory obligation to maintain her, the Allahabad high court allowed a criminal revision petition filed by a wife and her two minor children against a Dec 2023 order of a Bulandshahr family court.The high court restored the wife’s right to maintenance, enhanced the maintenance awarded to the children, and held that parental assistance cannot be treated as a substitute for the husband’s legal duty under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).The family court had rejected the woman’s claim for maintenance while awarding Rs 3,000 per month each to the couple’s two minor children.Allowing the revision petition filed by Reenu and her two children, Justice Garima Prashad held that the income of the wife’s parents cannot be treated as her income.In its judgment dated June 17, the high court observed that if the retired Army personnel defaults on the payment of maintenance, the wife and children would be at liberty to approach the competent court for deduction and recovery of the maintenance amount directly from his military pension and other lawful receivables.The woman and her kids had challenged the Dec 2023 order of the family court, Bulandshahr, which had denied maintenance to the wife while granting Rs 3,000 per month to each child.She had filed an application under Section 125 CrPC, alleging that after marriage she was subjected to harassment, taunts and cruelty by her husband and his family members.She further alleged that her husband stopped maintaining marital relations with her and later informed her that he had married another woman.According to her, she was assaulted and expelled from her matrimonial home along with her children in Jan 2020. Since then, she has been living at her parental home without any independent source of income.Opposing the plea, the man alleged that his wife had left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and was maintaining illicit relations with other persons.He also submitted 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 Nov 2020. He stated that after retirement, he receives a pension of about Rs 21,025 per month and has no other source of income.After hearing both parties, the family court rejected the wife’s claim on the ground that she had failed to prove specific instances of dowry demand, assault or the husband’s alleged second marriage. It also held that the allegations made by both parties remained unsubstantiated and concluded that the wife was residing separately without sufficient cause.Before the high court, the woman argued that the family court had adopted an approach contrary to the object of Section 125 CrPC by treating the proceedings as a full-fledged matrimonial trial on issues of cruelty and adultery.She contended that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are summary in nature and are intended to prevent destitution and ensure basic financial security for neglected dependants.It was further argued that although the family court itself had recorded that the husband had not paid maintenance to the wife and children after Nov 2020, it had erroneously concluded that she had not been neglected and had no sufficient reason to live separately.After considering the family court’s judgment and the submissions of both parties, the high court held that the reasoning adopted by the family court for denying maintenance to the wife was legally unsustainable.Justice Prashad clarified that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC do not require strict proof of cruelty as would be necessary in a criminal prosecution or a contested matrimonial proceeding.The court further observed that where the husband has initiated divorce proceedings, the parties are admittedly living separately due to serious matrimonial discord, and the wife has custody of two minor children, it cannot be lightly concluded that she is residing separately without sufficient cause.On the husband’s allegation of adultery, the bench noted that no independent witness, documentary evidence or other reliable material had been produced to establish that the wife was living in adultery.The court observed that the bar under Section 125(4) CrPC applies only when adultery is proved and that mere allegations, suspicion or character assassination cannot deprive a wife of her right to maintenance.On the issue of income, the court emphasised that an able-bodied husband cannot evade his statutory obligation to maintain his wife and children by suppressing his income or relying on financial assistance provided by the wife’s parents.The bench further observed that once the family court had accepted that the wife had no independent source of income, there was no justification for denying her maintenance.The high court also found the award of Rs 3,000 per month to each child to be “wholly inadequate and unrealistic”, observing that it was insufficient to meet the basic expenses of school-going children, including food, clothing, education, books, transport and medical needs.Accordingly, the high court modified the family court’s order and directed the husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs 5,000 to the wife. It also enhanced the maintenance for each of the two children from Rs 3,000 to Rs 4,000 per month.
