Court Criticizes Family Court's Misapplication of Law in Denying Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Garima Prashad, has set aside a Family Court's decision denying maintenance to Smt. Suman Verma, an educated homemaker, under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The High Court criticized the Family Court for misapplying legal principles by denying maintenance based on the wife's educational background and potential to earn.
The case arose from a revision petition filed by Suman Verma against the Family Court's order, which granted maintenance only to her minor son while denying her claim. Suman Verma, who has been living separately from her husband due to alleged cruelty and dowry demands, sought maintenance of Rs. 15,000 for herself and Rs. 10,000 for her son from her husband, who is employed as a Class-IV employee.
The High Court emphasized that the husband's legal obligation to maintain his wife and minor child remains absolute unless valid disqualifications under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. are established. It rejected the argument that the wife's refusal to live with her husband, despite a restitution decree, disqualified her from receiving maintenance. The Court noted that the mere potential to earn is not sufficient to deny a wife's right to maintenance.
The judgment also highlighted the husband's failure to provide evidence of the wife's gainful employment and criticized his false affidavit denying fatherhood of the child. The Court underscored the importance of fair, uniform, and adequate maintenance awards, as outlined in the Supreme Court's decision in Rajnesh v. Neha.
The High Court remanded the case back to the Family Court for a fresh determination of maintenance, instructing it to consider the principles governing maintenance and the observations made in the judgment. The Family Court has been directed to pass a reasoned order within one month.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that maintenance laws are applied in a manner that reflects social realities and supports the dignity and sustenance of women and children.
Bottom Line:
Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Wife cannot be denied maintenance merely on the ground that she is educated and has potential to earn. The husband's legal obligation to maintain his wife and minor child remains absolute unless valid disqualifications under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. are established.
Statutory provision(s): Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Smt. Suman Verma v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2836036
