Unproved personal loan deductions cannot diminish a husband’s maintenance obligation to his dependent wife.

The respondent-wife instituted proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), alleging that she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty, dowry-related demands, and was driven out of the matrimonial home on 2 July 2023.

She claimed that the petitioner-husband, a police constable with sufficient means, failed to maintain her, while she had no independent income. She sought monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000.

The husband denied the allegations and contended that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home, insisted that he live as a gharjamai, and had refused his attempts to resume cohabitation.

He also claimed a monthly salary of Rs.34,497, deductions towards an SBI loan, and responsibility for his ailing mother.

The wife’s evidence remained uncross-examined, while the evidence of the husband’s second witness was expunged for non-production for cross-examination.

The Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhubri awarded the wife maintenance of Rs.8,000 per month from the date of filing of the Section 125 application. The husband challenged that order in revision.

Whether the Family Court was justified in awarding maintenance to the respondent-wife under Section 125 CrPC when the husband alleged that she had voluntarily left the matrimonial home and had refused to resume cohabitation.

Whether the award of Rs.8,000 per month was excessive or otherwise disproportionate to the husband’s income and financial liabilities.

The court applied Section 125 CrPC, which enables a wife unable to maintain herself to claim maintenance from a husband having sufficient means who neglects or refuses to maintain her.

The court also applied the evidentiary principle that testimony which is not subjected to cross-examination remains unchallenged and may be relied upon by the court.

It further held that a document or factual assertion not introduced and proved in evidence, and not made available for challenge by the opposing party, cannot ordinarily be relied upon.

In assessing maintenance, the husband’s actual earning capacity and the wife’s lack of independent income are relevant; personal liabilities such as loan repayments cannot automatically reduce the husband’s statutory obligation to maintain his wife, particularly where the claimed liability is unsupported by documentary evidence.

The High Court found no infirmity in the Family Court’s conclusion that the wife had established her case. Her evidence regarding ill-treatment, expulsion from the matrimonial home, and lack of maintenance remained unrebutted because the husband did not cross-examine her.

The husband’s allegations that the wife had left voluntarily, stolen money and ornaments, and refused to return were not substantiated by appropriate proceedings or reliable evidence.

Although the husband relied on a Family Court counsellor’s order recording the wife’s alleged condition for resuming cohabitation, that order had not been exhibited or proved and therefore could not be treated as evidence.

The court further noted that the husband’s present monthly salary was approximately Rs.50,000, whereas the wife had no source of income and depended on her father.

The alleged monthly loan deduction was unsupported by documents and, in any event, represented a personal financial obligation that could not defeat the wife’s maintenance claim.

Against that financial background, Rs.8,000 per month was held neither inappropriate nor excessive.

It upheld the Family Court’s finding that the husband had neglected or failed to maintain the wife and that she was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

The award of Rs.8,000 per month from the date of filing of the maintenance application was found reasonable.

The criminal revision petition was accordingly dismissed.