Court Reduces Monthly Maintenance from Rs. 9,000 to Rs. 5,250; Reaffirms Husband's Continuous Obligation under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Madan Pal Singh, has partially allowed a criminal revision petition in the case of Murtaza Alias Phool Miya Alias Guddu v. State of U.P. The court revised the maintenance amount awarded to the wife under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), reducing it from Rs. 9,000 to Rs. 5,250 per month, based on the husband's presumed income.
The case, initially adjudicated by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi, involved the revisionist Murtaza (also known as Phool Miya or Guddu) challenging the maintenance order granted to his legally wedded wife, the opposite party. The trial court had originally directed Murtaza to pay Rs. 4,500 per month from the application date and Rs. 9,000 per month from the impugned order date.
Counsel for the revisionist, Rupendra Kumar Mishra, argued that the maintenance amount was excessive, given Murtaza's limited income as a daily wage laborer. He emphasized that the revisionist had no permanent income source and faced financial hardship, which the trial court failed to consider adequately.
Opposing counsel Anuj Kumar Gupta contended that the maintenance order was justified, given the circumstances and the legal obligations under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The court noted that the liability to pay maintenance is a recurring obligation and does not necessitate the filing of successive applications for fresh causes of action.
The court's judgment underscored that maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social legislation, intended to be construed liberally for the welfare and benefit of the wife. It emphasized that the husband's obligation to maintain his wife is continuous and should be proportionate to his income. Given the absence of evidence regarding Murtaza's actual income, the court presumed him to be an able-bodied person capable of earning a reasonable income.
Citing precedents such as Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) and Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (2017), the court applied the principle that maintenance should not exceed 25% of the husband's net income. It calculated Murtaza's potential earnings at Rs. 21,000 per month, leading to the revised maintenance amount.
In conclusion, the court upheld the wife's right to maintenance while ensuring that the amount is reasonable relative to the husband's income. This judgment reinforces the principle of continuous maintenance liability, aligning with the objectives of social welfare legislation.
Bottom Line:
Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a continuing liability and does not require filing successive applications for fresh causes of action. Maintenance amount must be proportionate to the husband's income.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)
Murtaza Alias Phool Miya Alias Guddu v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2876614
