If Husband Is Healthy, Able Bodied And In A Position To Support Himself, He Is Under Legal Obligation To Support His Wife: Gauhati HC
The Gauhati High Court ruled that if the husband is healthy, able bodied and in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife.
The Court observed that husbands often argue that they cannot afford to pay because they lack adequate employment or business opportunities; however, the Court dismissed these arguments as baseless excuses, stating that they have no acceptability in law.
The Court was hearing a Revision Petition against the decision of the Family Court after being dissatisfied by the decision of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
The bench of Justice Malasri Nandi observed, “it is clear that an order under Section 125 CrPC can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife. Sometimes a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have means to pay as he does not have a suitable job or business. But these are all bald excuses and in fact they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able bodied and in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife.”
Brief Facts-
Respondent filed a case under section 125 Cr.PC alleging that she married the petitioner but had to leave due to physical and mental torture. The trial Court ruled in favour of the respondent, ordering the petitioner to pay Rs. 2200 monthly as maintenance. The petitioner, dissatisfied with the judgment, filed the present revision petition.
The Court perused Section 125 CrPC and noted that if the husband willfully and intentionally neglects to provide maintenance to his wife then she can approach before the court seeking maintenance and the wife is not entitled to claim maintenance from her husband if she left the matrimonial house without any cause.
The Court mentioned the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Durga Singh Lodhi Vs. Prembai and others, reported in 1990 Cr.L.J. 2065 and according to the Court it was held that, “mere absence of visible means or real estate will not entitle such a person to escape the liability to pay maintenance awarded under Section 125(1), as even at the stage of enforcement of the order under Section 125(1), an able bodied healthy person capable of earning, must be subjected to pay maintenance allowance.”
The Court further mentioned the decision of the Supreme Court in Shamima Farooqui Vs- Shahid Khan and quoted, “A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 Cr.P.C., it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar."
The Court said that the marriage between the parties is not disputed and it is also not in dispute that the respondent has left the house of her husband on being harassed, according to the Court, the husband is duty bound to pay maintenance to the wife.
Accordingly, the Court found the Criminal Revision Petition devoid of any merit and therefore, dismissed it.
Cause Title: Mahim Ali v. State of Assam (Neutral Citation: GAHC010191972022)
Appearance:
Adv. Md. I.A. Khan
