A capable husband cannot avoid maintenance by claiming unemployment without evidence.

The wife and the parties’ two daughters sought maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Family Court directed the husband to pay ₹6,000 per month to the wife during her lifetime and ₹5,000 per month to each daughter until marriage.

The husband challenged that order, contending that the wife had left without justification, was employed and earning ₹11,000 per month, and that he was willing to take the family back.

The High Court noted that he had not entered the witness box or produced evidence substantiating those claims.

Whether the Family Court’s maintenance order suffered from illegality, perversity or infirmity warranting interference under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984

Whether the wife’s alleged employment, refusal to resume cohabitation, or the husband’s claimed inability to pay justified setting aside the maintenance order

Section 125 CrPC provides for maintenance where the statutory requirements are met, including neglect or refusal to maintain and the claimant’s inability to maintain herself; the husband must have sufficient means to provide maintenance

The Court referred to Mrs. K.R. Roopa v. B.M. Muralidhar, RPFC No. 133/2024, which stated that leaving the matrimonial home without reasonable cause may disqualify a wife from claiming maintenance

The Court also applied the principle that a husband capable of earning cannot avoid his duty to maintain his wife and children merely by asserting that he is unemployed or has no income

The husband’s allegation that the wife earned ₹11,000 per month was only put to her as a suggestion in cross-examination; he produced no evidence to establish her employment or income.

Nor did he support his claim of willingness to resume cohabitation with any effective legal step or other evidence demonstrating bona fides.

The wife explained that she lived separately because of ill-treatment and neglect.

The husband, an engineer, did not establish that he was incapable of earning or maintaining the respondents.

In the absence of cogent evidence undermining the Family Court’s findings, the High Court found no basis to interfere with the amounts awarded

The revision petition was dismissed, and the order directing payment of ₹6,000 per month to the wife and ₹5,000 per month to each daughter until marriage was confirmed