Husband’s legal obligation to maintain wife prevails over pleas of financial constraints or low income

The parties were married on November 4, 2019, according to Muslim customs.

The wife (applicant) filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. alleging dowry harassment and cruelty, claiming she was forced to live at her parental home

She asserted the husband earns ₹30,000/month as an electrician, while the husband claimed he is a mere helper earning ₹5,000/month

By order dated June 12, 2024, the Family Court, Gwalior, granted interim maintenance of ₹4,000/month to the wife

Both parties challenged this order: the wife seeking enhancement (CRR 5223/2024) and the husband seeking its reversal (CRR 3155/2024)

1. Whether the Family Court erred in awarding interim maintenance based on a notional assessment of the husband's income

2. Whether the quantum of ₹4,000 per month is inadequate or excessive given the socio-economic status of the parties

The Court applied Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., which serves as a measure of social justice to prevent vagrancy and destitution

It relied on the principle from Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015) that an able-bodied man is legally obligated to maintain his wife regardless of financial constraints or the availability of shelter at her parental home

Furthermore, it applied Rajnesh v. Neha (2021), which permits judicial "guesswork" in estimating income for interim maintenance when parties fail to disclose accurate or reliable income sources

The Court also noted the limited revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. regarding the re-appreciation of evidence

The Court observed that the marriage and separate living status were undisputed, and since the wife lacked an independent income, her entitlement to support was clear

Regarding the husband's income, the Court rejected his claim of earning only ₹5,000/month, noting that even a physically abled unskilled laborer is expected to earn minimum wages at the Collector’s rate, approximately ₹12,000 to ₹15,000 per month

Applying the Shamima Farooqui doctrine, the court held that his status as an "able-bodied young man" creates a presumption of earning capacity

The Court reasoned that since interim maintenance proceedings do not permit final adjudication of disputed facts (like the cause of separation), the Family Court's reliance on notional income and "guesswork" per Rajnesh v. Neha was legally sound

The Court held that the amount was neither excessive nor inadequate at the interim stage and that the lower court’s findings did not suffer from patent illegality or perversity

It clarified that these observations are limited to the interim stage and shall not prejudice the final disposal of the case on its merits after a full trial