Section 125 CrPC Is Not To Create Army Of Idle Or Inactive People Waiting For Maintenance From Other Spouse: Madhya Pradesh HC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has emphasized that the maintenance provisions under Section 125 of the CrPC were not intended to create a “dependent class” of individuals awaiting financial support from their spouses.
In the case, the petitioner argued that his wife, who holds an M.Com. degree, is capable of self-support, having previously worked in the film industry and currently operating a dance class.
A Bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh said, “Nevertheless, Section 125 of Cr.P.C has not been constituted to create an army of idle or inactive people waiting for maintenance to be awarded from the income of the other spouse. It is nowhere manifested that able and well qualified lady has to be always dependent upon her spouse for her maintenance.”
The Court acknowledged that while educational qualifications alone do not disqualify a wife from receiving maintenance, it also noted that a spouse's ability to secure employment should be taken into account. The Court noted, “It is also established as admitted fact that she is also well qualified lady. As per evidence available on record, it can be assumed that respondent No. 1 /wife can earn some income for her livelihood even after being supported from her husband.”
Advocate Sudha Shrivastava appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Arpit Singh appeared for the Respondent.
The Court clarified that although the respondent had the potential to earn an income based on her qualifications and past employment, it was essential to assess her current employment status. Consequently, the Court found the initial maintenance amount of ₹25,000 per month to be excessive and reduced it to ₹20,000 per month, considering her capability to generate some income. The Court also upheld a separate maintenance award of ₹15,000 per month for the couple's daughter until she reaches adulthood.
The husband, who filed a revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, argued that the maintenance order placed a significant financial burden on him, as he was also supporting his father and brother.
The Court observed that the petitioner, a senior manager at HDFC Bank, has the financial means to support his family. During cross-examination, the petitioner acknowledged possessing multiple assets, including a residence in Mumbai and a substantial fixed deposit.
Cause Title: X v. Y & Ors., [2024:MPHC-IND:29527]
