Unsubstantiated claims of a wife’s income cannot defeat her Section 125 CrPC maintenance claim.

The petitioner-husband and opposite party no. 2 were married on 3 July 2017 under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and had a son born on 27 February 2018.

The wife alleged that the petitioner maintained an illicit relationship, subjected her to cruelty, demanded ₹1 lakh from her mother, and assaulted and drove her out of the matrimonial home with the minor child on 12 December 2018.

She thereafter resided with her parents and claimed that the petitioner neglected and failed to maintain her and their son. She filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., seeking ₹10,000 per month for herself and ₹7,000 per month for the child.

The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Haldia, allowed the application in Misc. Case No. 12 of 2019 and directed the petitioner to pay ₹10,000 per month to his wife and ₹5,000 per month to his minor son, together with arrears in ten instalments.

In revision, the petitioner contended that the wife had left the matrimonial home voluntarily, that the allegations were false, and that she was earning approximately ₹10,000 per month through private tuition.

The wife produced the petitioner’s salary slip through an officer of WBSETCL, showing a net salary of ₹54,882 for September 2022.

The petitioner produced no evidence substantiating the wife’s alleged income.

Whether the Magistrate was justified in granting maintenance to the wife and minor son under Section 125 Cr.P.C. when the petitioner alleged that the wife was earning independently and had left the matrimonial home without justification.

Whether the maintenance awarded—₹10,000 per month for the wife and ₹5,000 per month for the minor son—was reasonable and warranted interference in revision, having regard to the petitioner’s income and liabilities.

Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 authorises a Magistrate to direct a person having sufficient means to pay monthly maintenance to his wife who is unable to maintain herself and to his legitimate or illegitimate minor child unable to maintain itself, upon proof of neglect or refusal to maintain.

The maintenance amount must be reasonable and realistic, taking into account the husband’s financial capacity, actual income, standard of living, reasonable personal expenses, and other liabilities, so that the wife and child can live with reasonable comfort.

The party asserting that the wife has sufficient independent income bears the evidentiary burden of substantiating that assertion.

The High Court found that the marriage and parentage of the minor child were undisputed and that the wife had been living separately from the petitioner since 12 December 2018.

Although the petitioner claimed that the wife earned ₹10,000 per month through private tuition, he neither adduced evidence nor produced documents to establish that claim.

Conversely, the wife proved the petitioner’s financial capacity through his employer’s witness and salary slip, which showed a net salary of ₹54,882 in September 2022.

In those circumstances, the petitioner had sufficient means and was under a legal and moral obligation to maintain his wife and minor son.

Applying the requirement that maintenance be reasonable and proportionate to the husband’s income, the Court held that the total award of ₹15,000 per month was just and reasonable and disclosed no illegality, jurisdictional error, or perversity.

The Court noted that the petitioner had already paid the arrears and was continuously paying the maintenance.

Any connected application was disposed of, and any interim order was vacated.