Husband’s Moral and Legal Obligation to Maintain Wife Remains Regardless of Educational Qualifications or Potential Earning Capacity

The applicant (husband) and respondent No. 2 (wife) married under Muslim rites. The wife alleged domestic violence and desertion, claiming the husband ousted her from the matrimonial home

She filed for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The Family Court, Rajkot, on 19.04.2019, ordered the husband to pay ₹4,000 per month

The husband challenged this order, claiming the wife left voluntarily, earns ₹40,000 monthly from a beauty parlour, and that he only earns ₹5,000 from cotton weaving

The husband’s counsel remained absent during the High Court proceedings, leading the court to decide the matter on merits based on the available record

1. Whether the Family Court erred in drawing an adverse inference regarding the husband's income and fixing the maintenance at ₹4,000/- per month.

2. Whether a wife's potential "capability" to earn is an adequate ground to deny or reduce maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

3. Whether the High Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the findngs of fact recorded by the trial court.

The Court applied Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing its nature as beneficial legislation

It relied on Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act to draw an adverse inference when a party suppresses income details

Key precedents included Shailja v. Khobbanna and Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, establishing that "unable to maintain herself" does not mean absolute destitution and that the wife is entitled to a standard of living consistent with the husband's status

Furthermore, Rajnesh v. Neha and Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg were cited to affirm that an able-bodied husband has a sacrosanct duty to maintain his wife, even through physical labor if necessary

The Court found that the husband failed to produce any evidence to prove the wife’s alleged income from a beauty parlour

Conversely, the trial court correctly drew an adverse inference under Section 114 of the Evidence Act because the husband suppressed his true income despite being able-bodied

The Court reasoned that mere capability of earning is not a ground to reduce maintenance; the law requires evidence of actual employment and sufficient income, which was absent here

Moreover, the Court noted that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is limited and cannot be used to re-appreciate facts or substitute findings unless they are perverse or suffer from a patent jurisdictional error, which the applicant failed to demonstrate

The High Court dismissed the revision application and confirmed the Family Court’s order dated 19.04.2019