Author: Asra Siddiqui, Faculty of Law, Aligarh Muslim University (AMU)
Section 125 CrPC is a welfare measure designed to prevent destitution by offering prompt maintenance relief to dependents unable to support themselves. It allows a Magistrate to order monthly maintenance for a wife, child, or parent neglected by someone who has sufficient means.
In the case of wives, the court may direct the husband to provide maintenance if she cannot maintain herself. The term “wife” includes a divorced woman who has not remarried. However, maintenance can be denied if she is living in adultery, has left the husband without sufficient cause, or if the separation is mutually agreed upon.
The essential condition is that the wife must be actually unable to maintain herself, not just theoretically unemployed or capable of earning.
Can a well-qualified wife who voluntarily leaves the matrimonial home and severe communication still claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC?
Courts have clarified that qualifications alone do not bar a woman from receiving maintenance. However, if a qualified wife with work experience intentionally avoids employment and leaves the home without valid reasons, this may justify denial of maintenance.
Section 125 is not intended to support lifelong dependency when the wife is capable of earning but chooses not to. If it is shown that she left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and has the ability to support herself, the court may consider this while deciding her claim.
Case Precedents
Sharadchandra Satbhai v. Indubai Satbhai, AIR 1978 Bom 369 (Bombay HC)
Facts:
The husband (petitioner) and wife (respondent) were married in 1963.
The wife, Indubai, left the matrimonial home in 1969 with her two minor children, without informing the husband.
The husband filed for judicial separation on the ground of desertion, which was granted ex parte in 1973.Indubai later filed for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The Magistrate rejected it, citing the prior decree of desertion.However, the
Revisional Court overturned that rejection and granted her ₹60/month as maintenance.
Issue:
Whether a wife, against whom a judicial separation decree is granted on the ground of desertion, can still claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, or is she barred by Section 125(4)?
Para 8:
“Now, in a case like the present one, when the civil Court has determined the issue of desertion and held that the wife has left her husband without reasonable cause and against his wish and without his consent, can it be said that she is still entitled to maintenance under Section 125 and not hit by
Sub-section (4)? It is plain and simple that she has refused to live with her husband without any sufficient reason and, therefore, disentitled herself to receive maintenance under Section 125.”
Para 8 (contd.):
“The effect of the decree for judicial separation on this particular ground of desertion cannot be overlooked by the Magistrate dealing with an application under Section 125 because he has to bear in mind the disability created by Sub-section (4) of that section.”
Para 8 (conclusion):
“In our judgment, Indubai is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as she had no reasonable ground not to live with her husband.”
The High Court held that since Indubai had willfully deserted her husband and a judicial separation decree confirmed that, she was disqualified from claiming maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC.
“In the result, the impugned order dated September 30, 1976 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, is quashed.”
If a woman refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason, and a civil court finds her guilty of desertion, she cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC due to the bar under Section 125(4).
Chanchal Mehta v. Supriya Mehta, Crl. Revn. No. 365 of 2016 (P&H HC, 29 Jan 2016)
The petitioner-husband, Chanchal Mehta, challenged an order dated 17.12.2015 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka, whereby his wife Supriya Mehta was granted interim maintenance of ₹20,000/- per month from the date of application under Section 125 CrPC.
The couple was married on 21.01.2006 and had a daughter who resided with the husband. The wife claimed she had no income and was unable to maintain herself. The husband argued that the wife was professionally qualified and capable of earning a livelihood. However, no documents were produced to prove she was earning. The trial court granted interim maintenance, which the husband challenged via a criminal revision petition before the High Court.
Issue:
Whether a professionally qualified but unemployed wife is entitled to interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, despite her capacity to earn.
:
On interpretation of “unable to maintain herself”
“As per provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C., the expression ‘unable to maintain herself’ clearly shows that it does not mean ‘capable of earning’. In other words the expression puts the emphasis on the wife being unable to maintain herself and not on the capacity of wife to ‘earn for herself’.”
On burden of proof:
“In the present case, neither it is stated in the reply filed of the petition nor argued that the respondent-wife is earning. Simply it has been mentioned that the respondent-wife is possessing professional qualification and can earn her livelihood.”
From Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamala Devi, (1975) 2 SCC 386:
“The wife should be in a position to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but what is consistent with status of family.
The expression ‘unable to maintain herself’ does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute when she applies for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.”
On sacrifice of a career by wife:
“Despite holding a higher educational qualification, it is not incumbent on the part of the wife to go for a job particularly when she is prepared to sacrifice a prospective career for the sake of her family.”
From Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, 2014 (4) RCR (Criminal) 831:
“Merely because the wife was earning money and may be highly qualified but that cannot be a ground to reject the claim for maintenance.”
On the object of Section 125 CrPC:
“It is meant to achieve social purpose and to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife.”
The Court upheld the trial court’s order granting ₹20,000/- per month as interim maintenance, holding that qualification or potential earning capacity is not a bar to maintenance unless it is proved that the wife is actually earning.
© 2025 Powered by Digi Grow Solutions | Design by Hasan Jafer
