MP HC Upholds ₹15,000 Wife And ₹5,000 Child Maintenance, Citing Unchallenged Abuse Testimony And Husband’s Failure To Bring Her Back After Reconciliation Deal

The parties married on 2 March 2014, and their daughter, respondent No. 2, was born on 21 September 2017.

Respondent No. 1 sought maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, alleging harassment and dowry-related disputes had compelled her to live separately with her parents.

The Family Court awarded her ₹15,000 per month and the child ₹5,000 per month.

The husband’s revision challenged only the award to respondent No. 1; he did not contest the child’s maintenance.

He argued that she lived separately without sufficient cause, while she relied, among other things, on alleged mistreatment and the husband’s failure to bring her back after a compromise in proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice intended to protect wives, children and infirm parents from destitution and is to be construed liberally in favour of claimants.

A wife seeking maintenance must establish that she is legally married to the person from whom maintenance is claimed, that he has sufficient means, that he has neglected or refused to maintain her, and that she is unable to maintain herself.

Under Section 125(4) CrPC, a wife living separately must show sufficient and just cause; otherwise, she is disentitled to maintenance.

The amount is determined with regard to the parties’ social and financial circumstances.

The Court found that the petitioner’s allegations about respondent No. 1’s character were unsupported by evidence.

Her evidence that she had been physically and mentally mistreated, and that the petitioner did not bring her back after the Section 9 proceedings were compromised, was not controverted.

Her account of mistreatment concerning the child’s condition also remained unchallenged.

The Family Court found that the petitioner was employed in government service and earned ₹70,000 per month, while he produced no evidence that respondent No. 1 was employed or earning an income.

On this record, the Court held that she had sufficient cause to live separately and that the Family Court’s findings were neither perverse nor arbitrary.

The revision was dismissed; the unchallenged maintenance award to respondent No. 2 was not in issue.