Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a criminal revision filed by husband under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) against Family Court’s order dated 20-04-2024 awarding interim maintenance of ₹4,000/- per month to the wife under Section 125 of the CrPC, a single-judge bench of G. S. Ahluwalia, J., upheld the trial court’s order granting interim maintenance of ₹4,000/- under Section 125 CrPC.
The applicant-husband contended that he works as a Ward Boy with a monthly income of ₹8,000/-. It was contended that the respondent-wife is already receiving ₹4,000/- per month under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, making the interim maintenance excessive. It was contended that the respondent has a beauty parlour and earns independently, making her ineligible for maintenance. It was contended that the respondent’s diary entry suggests she was misled about his family’s financial status at the time of marriage. It was also contended that the respondent allegedly had an extramarital affair, which should have disqualified her from receiving maintenance. The applicant lastly contended that his father had dispossessed him from family property through public notice, further straining his financial situation.
The Court stated that the salary certificate submitted by the applicant lacked authentication as it did not mention the date and place of issuance. The Court cited Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, where the Supreme Court held that if a husband is able-bodied, his low income cannot be a ground to deny maintenance.
The Court clarified that under Section 125(4) CrPC, maintenance can only be denied if the wife is living in adultery, which requires proof of a sexual relationship. The Court held that mere emotional attachment or affection does not constitute adultery.
“Adultery necessary means sexual intercourse. Even if a wife is having a love and affection towards somebody else without any physical relations, then that by itself cannot be sufficient to hold that the wife is living in adultery.”
The Court noted that the applicant did not submit any credible evidence proving that the respondent ran a beauty parlour or earned independently. The Court held that mere allegations without supporting documents cannot deny the respondent’s right to maintenance.
The Court note that the applicant himself submitted the respondent’s diary entry, which indicated that he and his family had misled the respondent about their financial status before marriage. The Court further noted that the diary also contained allegations of physical assault by the applicant, justifying the respondent’s decision to live separately.
The Court deemed the public notice issued by the applicant’s father, a legal camouflage as the applicant’s residential address remained the same. The Court emphasised that an able-bodied husband cannot evade his responsibility to provide maintenance, irrespective of his income constraints.
“If the husband is an able-bodied person, then he cannot run away from his liability.”
The Court asserted that courts must consider maintenance awarded under different statutes while determining the final amount. The Court noted that the trial court had already accounted for the ₹4,000/- received under the Hindu Marriage Act and considering the cost of living and daily expenses, the maintenance awarded is justified.
The Court upheld the trial court’s order granting interim maintenance of ₹4,000/- under Section 125 CrPC. The Court opined that the applicant’s claims regarding his wife’s earnings, love affair, and financial hardship are unsubstantiated and therefore, did not warrant interference with the trial court’s order. The Court dismissed the revision petition.
[Amit Kumar Khodake v. Madhuri, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 976, Decided on 17-01-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Shri Vitthal Rao Jumre, Counsel for the Applicant
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
