Highly educated wife capable of earning who voluntarily deserts matrimonial home is disentitled to maintenance.

The applicant-wife challenged the judgment of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Surendranagar, dated 10.06.2020, which rejected her application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The applicant married the respondent-husband on 02.05.2014; notably, this was her third marriage.

Evidence revealed that the applicant suppressed her previous marriages and the receipt of ₹11.50 lakhs as permanent alimony from a prior settlement.

During cross-examination, she admitted to holding an MBA degree and having previously earned ₹15,000 per month.

The respondent-husband alleged that the applicant voluntarily deserted her matrimonial home and her two-and-a-half-year-old daughter to reside in Surendranagar.

1. Whether the Family Court erred in rejecting the maintenance application on the grounds that the applicant is highly educated and capable of self-support?

2. Whether the applicant is disentitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) of the CrPC due to voluntary desertion of the matrimonial home without sufficient reason?

3. Whether the High Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the factual findings of the Family Court?

The court primarily applied Section 125 of the CrPC, specifically the proviso and sub-section (4), which mandates that a wife is not entitled to maintenance if she refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason.

The court further relied on the principles governing revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC, as elucidated in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr. (2012) 9 SCC 460, which stipulates that findings of fact should not be disturbed unless they are found to be perverse, arbitrary, or suffer from non-compliance with the law.

The Court observed that the Family Court had properly evaluated the evidence regarding the applicant’s conduct and financial capacity.

Although the applicant initially suppressed her marital history and the ₹11.50 lakh alimony, these facts were established during cross-examination.

Applying Section 125 CrPC, the Court noted that the applicant voluntarily left her matrimonial home and abandoned her minor child, thereby failing to establish "sufficient reason" for living separately.

The Court highlighted that the applicant’s MBA qualification and prior work experience demonstrated her capability to maintain herself, which, coupled with her conduct, justified the denial of maintenance.

Under the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, the Court found no palpable error or perversity in the lower court's reasoning that would warrant judicial interference.

The Court affirmed that the Family Court’s decision was based on a sound appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any legal infirmity.

Consequently, the revision application was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.