Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to interfere with the rejection of a wife’s maintenance claim under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, holding that deliberate concealment of income and assets disentitles a claimant from relief, and pointedly observing that maintenance law cannot be invoked as a tool for unjust enrichment.
The case stemmed from a criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 of the CrPC challenging an order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, which had dismissed the wife’s application for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. The wife had sought monthly maintenance on the ground that she lacked sufficient means to sustain herself, while alleging that the husband was financially well placed. During the proceedings before the Family Court, evidence emerged regarding the petitioner’s employment history, bank accounts, savings instruments, and educational qualifications. The Family Court found that the petitioner had suppressed material facts relating to her income, employment, and financial assets, leading to rejection of her claim. Aggrieved by this finding, the petitioner approached the High Court, contending that the trial court had misread the evidence and applied an unduly strict standard.
The Petitioner argued that the Family Court erred in concluding that the Petitioner had concealed her employment and income. The Counsel submitted that although she earned some amount, the income was insufficient to meet her maintenance needs, and that she was residing with her father and dependent upon him. The Petitioner further contended that the husband had understated his true income and was, in reality, the beneficiary of a business run in his mother’s name, thereby possessing far greater financial capacity than disclosed.
Justice Alok Jain noted that the petitioner had falsely projected the adoption of a child without any legal basis, admitting that the husband had never consented and that no documentary or official record supported the claim. More significantly, the Court recorded that the petitioner had concealed her employment, including her engagement with a commercial establishment and her work as a school teacher, and had failed to disclose these facts in her affidavit of income.
Highlighting the financial disclosures, the Court noted that the petitioner held Kisan Vikas Patras and a Public Provident Fund account with balances exceeding Rs 15 lakh, along with other bank accounts, including a salary account whose details were withheld despite specific suggestions. In strong terms, the Court observed that “the petitioner cannot be permitted to play hide and seek with the Court and abuse the process of law,” and reiterated that Section 125 of the CrPC is intended “to protect the dignity of women” but “can’t be permitted to be used as a tool for unjust enrichment.”
Relying on the Supreme Court’s rulings in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai and Rajnesh v. Neha, the Court emphasised that maintenance is payable only when the wife is unable to maintain herself and that full and honest disclosure is foundational to such proceedings.
At last, on finding no perversity or infirmity in the Family Court’s assessment, the Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that a wife who is educated, gainfully employed, and in possession of substantial financial assets, and who suppresses these facts from the court, cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.
Case Title: A vs S
Case No.: CRR(F)-1195-2025
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Jain
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Ashish K. Gupta
Advocate for the Respondent: None appeared
Read Judgment @ Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
