Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. remains sustainable despite a divorce decree if justifiable cause for separate living exists.

The applicant (husband) and respondent No. 1 (wife) married on 01.06.2012, and respondent No. 2 (daughter) was born in 2014

The wife alleged that the applicant subjected her to mental and physical cruelty, dowry harassment, and was involved in an extramarital affair, eventually driving her out of the matrimonial home on 19.07.2020

The respondents filed for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The applicant resisted, claiming the wife refused to resume matrimonial life despite a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and a subsequent divorce decree granted on 15.07.2024

On 24.02.2026, the Family Court, Bilaspur, awarded monthly maintenance of Rs. 2,500 to the wife and Rs. 500 to the child

The applicant challenged this order through a criminal revision

1. Whether the Family Court committed an illegality by granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. despite the wife’s refusal to comply with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and the subsequent grant of divorce

2. Whether the maintenance amount awarded was excessive or arbitrary given the applicant’s financial status and the wife’s educational background

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which establishes the statutory right of a wife and child to claim maintenance from a person with sufficient means who neglects or refuses to maintain them

Principle that a wife is entitled to live separately and claim maintenance if she has "sufficient and justifiable cause," such as cruelty or the dissolution of marriage

The High Court scrutinized the Family Court's findings and determined that the wife had justifiable grounds to live separately due to the cruelty she endured and the eventual divorce

The court rejected the applicant's contention that the restitution of conjugal rights decree or the wife's educational status absolved him of his liability

It observed that the applicant, being a businessman, possessed the capacity to maintain his family, whereas the respondents lacked an independent source of income

The court found that the total maintenance of Rs. 3,000 per month was modest and could not be considered "on the higher side"

Consequently, it held that the trial court's order suffered from no jurisdictional error or infirmity

The court affirmed the award of Rs. 2,500 per month to the wife and Rs. 500 per month to the minor child

The Registrar (Judicial) was directed to transmit the original records to the concerned Family Court within one week for follow-up action