Recently, the Allahabad High Court took up a crucial maintenance-law challenge under Section 125 CrPC, examining a serious lapse in a Family Court order that had directed a husband to pay monthly maintenance to his wife despite her own admitted income. Faced with allegations that the trial court ignored key evidence and that the wife had concealed essential details about her employment, the Court turned its focus to the statutory requirement of “inability to maintain oneself”, emphasising that this threshold cannot be stretched to equalise the financial standing of the spouses.
The case arose when the husband challenged a February 2024 order of the Family Court, which directed him to pay Rs. 5,000 per month as maintenance to his wife. The controversy began when the husband argued that the wife had approached the court claiming to be unemployed and without any source of income. However, during the proceedings, documents and admissions revealed she was a postgraduate, a qualified web designer, and employed as a Senior Sales Coordinator drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 36,000.
The Counsel for the revisionist contended that the Family Court ignored this evidence and instead awarded maintenance simply to “equalise” the status of the parties, even though the husband was supporting aged parents and bearing additional social obligations. The wife, who did not appear during the revision hearing, had declared “nil” liabilities in her affidavit, another factor the husband argued was inconsistent with her plea of financial dependence.
Justice Madan Pal Singh found that the statutory scheme of Section 125 CrPC had been misapplied, observing that the provision clearly permits maintenance only when a wife is unable to maintain herself. Referring to the wife’s own affidavit and cross-examination, the Court noted that she had admitted to earning Rs. 36,000 per month and that such an amount “for a wife who has no other liability, cannot be said to be meagre.”
Significantly, the Court issued a stern reminder on litigant’s duty of candour, remarking that “When a person approaches a Court, he should approach the Court not only with clean hands but also with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective.” The Bench further emphasised that the judicial process must not become a tool of abuse, especially when a party suppresses material facts. Concluding that the wife was financially self-sufficient and had misrepresented her employment status, the Court set aside the Family Court’s order and allowed the criminal revision.
Case Title: Ankit Saha Vs. State of U.P. and Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. - 2487 Of 2024
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan Pal Singh
Advocate for the Revisionist: Advs. Shreesh Srivastava, Sujan Singh
Advocate for the Opposite Party: G.A., Nandini Mishra
Read Order @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
