Maintenance requires findings on the wife’s inability to maintain herself and the husband’s income.

The parties married on 16 August 2007 and began living separately within months.

The wife alleged cruelty and that her husband had failed to maintain her; in 2014, she applied for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

The Family Court allowed the application in 2018, directing the husband to pay ₹25,000 per month from the date of the order and ₹20,000 as litigation costs.

The husband challenged that order in revision, disputing the wife’s entitlement and the assessment of his income; the wife relied, among other matters, on his failure to participate fully in the trial and disclose his income.

The High Court noted the parties’ competing accounts of the separation, the delay before the maintenance application, and the absence of a sufficient assessment of the parties’ financial circumstances.

Whether the Family Court’s maintenance order could stand despite the disputed circumstances of separation, the wife’s alleged ability to maintain herself, and the absence of a proper assessment of the husband’s income.

Whether the matter should be remitted for a fresh determination after both parties disclose their assets and liabilities and have an opportunity to adduce evidence.

Section 125 CrPC provides a summary remedy for a wife who is unable to maintain herself where her husband, despite having sufficient means, neglects or refuses to maintain her; a wife may be disentitled where she lives in adultery, refuses without sufficient reason to live with her husband, or the parties live separately by mutual consent.

The Court described the provision’s purpose as preventing destitution and vagrancy, relying on Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705, and Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324.

It also referred to Kiran Jyot Maini v. Aneesh Pramod Patel, 2024 INSC 530, for consideration of the parties’ financial disclosures and circumstances when determining maintenance.

The Court stressed that entitlement and the husband’s income must be assessed on the evidence, and directed both parties to file affidavits of assets and liabilities.

The Court considered the wife’s allegations of cruelty and inability to work alongside the delayed maintenance application, the disputed circumstances of separation, and the husband’s earlier proceedings for restitution and divorce.

It found that the Family Court had not adequately addressed the wife’s entitlement or determined the husband’s actual income before fixing ₹25,000 per month; it also noted the need to consider the parties’ financial disclosures and the maintenance directed in a separate proceeding.

Although the husband had not completed the trial process, the Court concluded that a fresh hearing would allow the relevant entitlement and income questions to be determined on evidence.

The matter was remitted for a fresh hearing, with directions that both parties file affidavits of assets and liabilities and be given opportunities to adduce evidence; the Family Court was directed to conclude the proceeding expeditiously.

Pending that determination, the husband was directed to pay ₹10,000 per month, inclusive of any maintenance ordered in another proceeding, by the seventh day of each month.

Amounts already paid are to be adjusted against the eventual determination of entitlement.