### Voluntary Desertion Without Sufficient Cause Disqualifies Wife from Claiming Maintenance Under Section 125(4) CrPC

The applicant (wife) filed for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., claiming she was forced out of the matrimonial home and had no income, while the non-applicant (husband) earned approximately ₹3,00,000 per month.

The husband contended that the applicant voluntarily deserted him and the children on 11.11.2022 to travel to Delhi with another individual (Manish Yadav), leading to a missing person report.

Initially, an ex-parte order granted ₹5,000 per month, but the High Court remanded the matter for a fresh hearing.

On remand, the Family Court found that the wife had stayed in Delhi for 10–11 days with the said individual and had deserted her children, thus disqualifying her from maintenance.

The applicant challenged this dismissal via the current criminal revision.

1. Whether the Family Court erred in its finding that the applicant was disqualified from receiving maintenance under Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C.

2. Whether the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, should interfere with the Family Court’s appreciation of evidence regarding voluntary desertion.

The court primarily applied Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which mandates that no wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for maintenance if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.

The court also adhered to the principles governing Revisional Jurisdiction, which restrict interference to cases involving perversity, illegality, or material irregularity in the lower court's findings.

The Court evaluated the applicant's argument that the Family Court relied on unproven allegations and lacked strictly admissible evidence, such as a Section 65B Evidence Act certificate for electronic messages.

However, the High Court observed that the Family Court’s decision was based on a holistic "appreciation of the material available on record and surrounding circumstances," specifically the admitted fact that the applicant left the matrimonial home without notice and remained in Delhi for 11 days with a third party while her children remained with the husband.

The Court reasoned that these established facts provided a sufficient basis for the Family Court to conclude that the applicant had "voluntarily deserted" the husband "without any sufficient cause."

Consequently, the High Court determined that the lower court's findings were well-reasoned and did not suffer from perversity.

It held that the Family Court had meticulously examined the evidence and correctly applied the disqualification criteria under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.

The Court confirmed that in the absence of any material irregularity or illegality, the finding that the wife was not entitled to maintenance due to voluntary desertion must stand.