Husband’s potentiality to earn and wife’s medical exigencies justify maintenance despite claims of business loss.

The respondent-wife filed for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC in 2019, alleging mental and physical harassment and financial neglect by the applicant-husband.

The parties were married in 1995 and have a son.

The Family Court, Anand, initially granted interim maintenance of ₹15,000 per month, which was later increased to ₹50,000 per month in the final judgment dated 10.12.2021.

The applicant-husband challenged this order, claiming he had limited income (approx. ₹2 lakh per annum) due to the closure of his business (franchise of Canon) and financial losses post-COVID-19.

Conversely, the respondent-wife, who is suffering from cancer, alleged that the applicant suppressed his actual income, maintained a high standard of living with frequent international travel, and had a business turnover running into crores.

1. Whether the Family Court erred in awarding monthly maintenance of ₹50,000 by misappreciating the financial capacity of the husband.

2. Whether the "unable to maintain herself" criterion is satisfied given the wife's educational qualifications and the husband's claim of business closure.

The court applied Section 125 of the CrPC, emphasizing its nature as beneficial legislation for preventing vagrancy.

It relied on the principle from Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, stating that "unable to maintain herself" does not mean absolute destitution but the inability to maintain the standard of living enjoyed in the matrimonial home.

Following Rajnesh v. Neha, the court noted that maintenance must account for inflation and the husband's status.

Under Kiran Tomar v. State of U.P., the court held that Income Tax Returns are not absolute proof of income in matrimonial disputes as parties tend to underestimate earnings.

Per Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg, an able-bodied husband has a sacrosanct duty to earn and maintain his wife.

The court found that the applicant failed to prove his business had actually closed, noting his continued involvement in legal proceedings to recover commercial dues and his high-value bank transactions.

The court rejected the applicant's reliance on his low-income tax returns, observing that he had suppressed Profit & Loss accounts and that his lifestyle—including travel to Dubai, Japan, and Australia—indicated significant wealth.

The court specifically highlighted the wife’s cancer diagnosis, noting that her medical expenses necessitated a higher maintenance amount.

It was determined that the husband’s potential to earn, combined with evidence of his assets and previous business turnover, justified the Family Court’s assessment of his monthly income at ₹1,50,000 and the subsequent award of ₹50,000.

The court held that the applicant’s "recalcitrant attitude" and attempts to hide income through selective evidence did not absolve him of his legal and moral duty to support his ailing wife.

All interim stays were vacated, and the ruling of the lower court was upheld as being based on a proper appreciation of evidence without perversity.