Acquittal in a cruelty prosecution does not negate a wife’s sufficient cause to live separately for maintenance.

The husband challenged the Family Court’s order under Section 125 CrPC awarding his wife maintenance of ₹20,000 per month.

The parties’ marriage and cohabitation were undisputed.

The husband, employed at WCL, had a gross monthly salary of ₹1,82,626 and take-home salary of ₹1,00,349.

He argued that the award failed to account for his dependent family members and that his wife had left without sufficient reason.

The wife relied on alleged cruelty; although the husband and his family were acquitted in the Section 498-A IPC case, her appeal was pending.

The husband had also filed a divorce suit.

Whether the wife had sufficient reason to live separately despite the acquittal in the Section 498-A IPC case.

Whether an award of ₹20,000 per month was justified in light of the husband’s take-home salary and asserted family liabilities.

Section 125 CrPC permits maintenance where a wife establishes entitlement under the provision.

An acquittal in a criminal case alleging cruelty does not, by itself, negate the wife’s sworn account of cruelty or establish that she lacked sufficient reason to live separately (Dali Bai v. Rajendra Singh, (2006) 1 MPLJ 465; Prashant Shrivastava v. Sushma Shrivastava, ILR 2010 MP 1216).

The filing of a divorce suit may also constitute a sufficient reason for separate living, as recognised in the authorities cited by the Court.

Maintenance must be assessed in the factual context, having regard to the parties’ status, the paying spouse’s capacity, and relevant liabilities; Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury, (2017) 14 SCC 200, treated 25% of net salary as just and proper in its circumstances.

The Court also considered Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, para. 80, concerning assessment of maintenance in light of relevant obligations.

The wife’s account of cruelty was not displaced merely by the acquittal, particularly as her appeal remained pending; the husband’s divorce suit further supported her reason for living separately.

On quantum, the Family Court had assessed the husband’s take-home salary at ₹1,00,349 per month, a figure he did not dispute.

The Court accepted that the husband might have responsibilities toward his widowed mother and unmarried sisters, but held that his able-bodied married brother was not a person he was legally obliged to maintain.

After the ₹20,000 award, the husband would retain sufficient income to meet the relevant family responsibilities; the authorities relied on by him did not justify interference.

Finding no ground to interfere, it dismissed the criminal revision and disposed of any pending applications.