In a notable judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court clarified that the maintenance provision under Section 125 CrPC should not be misused by able-bodied wives who choose not to seek employment. This observation was made by Justice Nidhi Gupta while upholding a lower court’s decision to reject a woman’s plea for maintenance from her husband.
Justice Gupta emphasized that Section 125 CrPC aims to prevent destitution and homelessness among abandoned wives who are genuinely unable to support themselves. She noted, “The provision is not intended to serve as an instrument for capable individuals to shirk employment and rely entirely on their spouses for sustenance.”
The case involved a rural woman who claimed to have no income and stated that she was financially dependent on her husband, a mason earning approximately ₹12,000 per month. However, her initial plea for maintenance was dismissed by the family court due to inconsistencies in her statements, including discrepancies in the birth dates of their children.
It was revealed that the woman had left her matrimonial home in July 2014 and filed for maintenance in November of the same year. After evaluating the evidence, the family court determined that she had abandoned her home without justifiable reason, leading to the rejection of her maintenance request.
During cross-examination, it was also disclosed that the woman had no intention of reconciling with her husband and had not made any attempt to seek custody of their minor children, who were between one and three years old at the time of her departure.
The High Court further highlighted that the husband’s actual monthly income was much lower than what was claimed, ranging between ₹6,000 and ₹7,000, which he used to care for their children and his elderly mother. The court concluded that, under these circumstances, it was primarily the petitioner’s responsibility to find employment and support herself, thereby denying her maintenance claim.
