Dowry-related cruelty constitutes sufficient cause for a wife’s separate residence and entitlement to Section 125 CrPC maintenance.

The petitioner-husband and respondent-wife married on 30 November 2007 and had two sons, who were residing with the petitioner.

The wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, alleging dowry-related harassment, physical and mental cruelty, and that she had been compelled to reside separately after being beaten and left at her parental home on 29 August 2015.

The wife further alleged that the husband operated a gold and silver jewellery business and earned sufficient income to maintain her.

The husband denied the allegations, asserting that the wife had left voluntarily, that he earned only Rs.10,000–12,000 per month as a skilled jewellery-repair worker, and that he had liabilities towards his aged mother and two minor children.

The Family Court, Gwalior, found that the wife had sufficient cause to live separately and awarded her maintenance of Rs.7,000 per month from the date of the application by order dated 24 February 2021.

The husband challenged that order under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC.

Whether the respondent-wife had sufficient and reasonable cause to live separately from the petitioner-husband and was consequently entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

Whether the petitioner-husband possessed sufficient means to maintain the respondent and whether the wife was unable to maintain herself.

Whether the award of maintenance of Rs.7,000 per month was excessive, unreasonable, or otherwise warranted interference in revisional jurisdiction.

Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution and must be liberally construed in favour of a claimant-wife.

A wife seeking maintenance must establish that she is the legally wedded wife, that the husband has sufficient means, that he has neglected or refused to maintain her, and that she is unable to maintain herself. Where she lives separately, she must also show sufficient and just cause for doing so; otherwise, Section 125(4) CrPC may disentitle her from maintenance.

The quantum of maintenance must be determined with regard to the parties’ social and financial status, the wife’s needs, and the husband’s overall earning capacity.

In a revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, interference is justified only where the subordinate court’s order suffers from perversity, patent illegality, or jurisdictional error.

The Court upheld the Family Court’s finding that the wife had a reasonable cause to reside separately because her allegations of physical and mental cruelty connected with dowry demands were supported by the FIR, medical report, and x-ray report.

The husband’s allegations concerning the wife’s character, income, and criminal associations were unsupported by contemporaneous complaints or reliable evidence, and he admitted that he had not lodged any police report in that regard.

The wife’s evidence that she had no independent source of income remained unrebutted, as the husband produced no documentary or independent evidence to establish that she earned from selling garments, giving tuition, or through her brother’s business.

The Court also rejected the husband’s claim of earning only Rs.10,000–12,000 per month, noting the registration and photographs of the jewellery establishment operating as “Moga Jewellers,” with the petitioner shown as proprietor, as well as his admitted expenditure on his children’s education and medical needs.

His obligation towards his mother and children had been considered, including the fact that his mother’s medical expenses were shared with his elder brother.

In these circumstances, Rs.7,000 per month was held to be a reasonable amount that balanced the wife’s needs with the husband’s paying capacity.

The award of Rs.7,000 per month from the date of the application was neither excessive nor unreasonable.

Finding no perversity, patent illegality, or jurisdictional defect in the Family Court’s order, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision and affirmed the order dated 24 February 2021 in Criminal Case No. 429/2016.