Husband’s failure to prove wife’s voluntary desertion or adultery entitles wife and minor child to maintenance.

The Petitioner (husband) challenged a judgment dated 05.04.2025 passed by the Family Court, Udaipur, which directed him to pay monthly maintenance of ₹6,000 (₹3,000 each) to his wife (Respondent No. 1) and minor daughter (Respondent No. 2) from the date of filing.

The wife alleged she was driven out of her matrimonial home due to physical and mental cruelty related to dowry demands.

The Petitioner contended that the wife left voluntarily in 2016, lived with her paternal family, and even removed her name from his family ration card.

He further alleged she had illicit relations and that he had previously been acquitted in a Section 498A IPC case filed by her.

1. Whether the wife was disentitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. on the grounds of living separately without sufficient reason or by mutual consent?

2. Whether the Family Court’s order of maintenance was justified given the lack of documented proof of the husband’s exact income?

The Court primarily applied Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which mandates that an able-bodied person has a legal and moral obligation to maintain his wife and children if they are unable to maintain themselves.

Section 125(4) was considered, which stipulates that a wife is not entitled to maintenance if she lives in adultery, refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason, or lives separately by mutual consent.

The Court also emphasized the summary nature of proceedings under Section 125, focusing on "refusal or neglect" to maintain.

The High Court observed that the Petitioner admitted to staying with the wife in Bangalore for their daughter's treatment in 2020, which contradicted his claim that she had completely severed the marital bond in 2016.

Crucially, during cross-examination, the Petitioner admitted he was not paying any maintenance and had not filed for restitution of conjugal rights.

He failed to produce evidence regarding her alleged illicit relations or the alleged remittance of ₹15-20 lakhs to her account.

The Petitioner’s own father (OPW4) testified that the Petitioner was not providing for the wife and daughter.

The Court reasoned that since the husband is an able-bodied man, he is legally bound to support his dependents regardless of the wife’s inability to prove his exact monthly income of ₹60,000.

The Court found that the Petitioner failed to prove the wife was living separately "voluntarily" without "sufficient reason" so as to invoke the bar under Section 125(4).

The High Court affirmed the judgment dated 05.04.2025, upholding the maintenance award of ₹6,000 per month.

The criminal revision petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, and the Petitioner was directed to pay the ordered amount to prevent hardship to the respondents.