Husband earns Rs 1.5 lakh monthly but wife gets no maintenance; Allahabad HC explains when a wife can be denied support

The Allahabad High Court in a recent judgement has ruled that a well-educated lady who is capable of earning and maintaining herself does not need to get maintenance from her husband. On this ground the Allahabad High Court rejected a wife’s maintenance plea.

The Allahabad High Court explained that the fundamental object of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is to prevent vagrancy and destitution; however, since the wife in this case is well-qualified and capable of earning, she does not fall within the ambit of a person "unable to maintain herself" as required under the statute of law.

Also read: No maintenance for wife who had a 10-year long live-in relationship with a married man; Allahabad High Court rules

What had happened here?

On April 16, 2022, the couple had married by following Hindu rituals, however after remaining in her matrimonial home for a few days, she left for her paternal house with her uncle on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan and has since not returned. Shortly thereafter, she filed a court case under Section 125 of CrPC alleging that she was subjected to cruelty for dowry and was forced to leave the matrimonial home, and that her husband, despite having sufficient means, has neglected and refused to maintain her.

Advocate Deepak Gaur who is her lawyer told the Allahabad High Court that she is an educated lady but at present is unemployed whereas he (husband) is software engineer earning about Rs 1.5 lakh per month.

Advocate Deepak Gaur argued in court that she had valid reasons to live separately and that she is entirely dependent, whereas the husband has a handsome income.

Advocate Avinash Mani Tripathi representing the husband said before the Allahabad High Court that he is at present unemployed, has no property in his name and is fully dependent on his parents for livelihood.

Trial court’s found husband made efforts to be together, she did not. The trial court also categorically recorded a finding of fact based on the oral and documentary evidence that the husband made bona fide efforts to bring her back, which she refused. Instead, she went to her maternal home with her uncle on Raksha Bandhan of her own free will and since then she refused to come back again without any sufficient cause.

Also read: Qualified but not working? HC denies maintenance to doctor wife, says she can’t burden husband

Why didn’t the wife win the case?

Advocate Anant Misra said to ET Wealth Online the wife's claim under Section 125 CrPC, 1973 failed because she could not satisfy the essential ingredients of the section. Section 125 CrPC, 1973 requires three conditions for grant of maintenance and the same must be fulfilled:

• The husband against whom the claim of maintenance under section 125 CrPC, 1973 is filed must have sufficient means;
• The wife must be unable to maintain herself;
• The wife has, without sufficient reasons, refused to live with her husband.

In this case before the subordinate court the wife could not fulfill the aforementioned conditions of Section 125 Cr.PC, 1973 since the family court found that she had gone to her maternal home on her own free will on Raksha Bandhan and refused to return despite the husband's bona fide efforts to bring her back. Moreover, the family court also observed that she was living separately without sufficient reason which attracts the statutory bar in Section 125(4) Cr.PC, 1973. And lastly the family court also noted that she is educated, well-qualified and capable of earning, so she was able to maintain herself.

Misra says: "Because of the above reasons the maintenance under section 125 CrPC was denied by the court."

Also read: Marriage over, liability remains: HC orders husband to pay maintenance to wife despite his student status

If the wife is capable of earning, do courts usually deny her maintenance?

Misra says that even a working wife can claim maintenance if her income is not enough to keep her at the same standard of living, she had in the matrimonial home. The test under Section 125 CrPC is whether she is genuinely unable to maintain herself in the same standard, as of her husband.

Also read: Be a gharjamai: Is wife asking her husband to leave his ageing parents and live in her parents' house as a househusband cruelty? Jharkhand HC judgement answers

Allahabad High Court discussion

The Allahabad High Court said that the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is highly constrained and thus high courts while exercising its revisional powers, can't functions as an appellate court to re-appreciate or re-weigh the evidence. Thus high court's interference is warranted only when the findings of the trial Court are found to be manifestly perverse, illegal, or suffering from a gross jurisdictional error.

In the present case, the findings recorded by the Principal Judge, Family Court, are pure findings of fact, rooted in the evidence adduced during the trial.

Thus the Allahabad High Court said that the Family Court has correctly applied the provisions of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. to the facts of the instant case. There is no illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the impugned judgment that would require the interference of this Court.

Thus, on this ground, the Allahabad High Court rejected the wife’s plea.