Wife Living Separately Without Sufficient Cause and Capable of Maintaining Herself Disentitled to Section 125 CrPC Maintenance.

The applicant (wife) and respondent (husband) were married on 17.04.2008, and a son was born in 2009.

The applicant left the matrimonial home on 09.04.2013, alleging mental and physical cruelty, dowry demands, and assault by the respondent.

She filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC seeking maintenance, claiming the respondent earns Rs. 25,000–30,000 per month as a mason.

The respondent denied the allegations, asserting that the applicant deserted him without cause, misbehaved with his mother, and is capable of maintaining herself through household work.

The Family Court, Durg, rejected the maintenance application on 24.01.2026.

The applicant moved the High Court in criminal revision challenging this dismissal.

1. Whether the Family Court committed a jurisdictional error or illegality in rejecting the application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

2. Whether the applicant proved sufficient cause for living separately from her husband to entitle her to maintenance.

The Court primarily applied Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Specifically, it relied on Section 125(4) CrPC, which mandates that no wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for maintenance if she is living separately by mutual consent, or if she refuses to live with her husband without any sufficient reason, or if she is living in adultery.

The Court also adhered to the principle that a revisionary court should not interfere with findings of fact unless there is a manifest illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error.

The High Court examined the Family Court's findings, which noted material contradictions between the applicant’s oral testimony and documentary evidence regarding the alleged cruelty.

The Court observed that the applicant failed to substantiate the claims of assault or intoxication that would justify her living separately.

The analysis centered on the fact that the applicant's testimony was deemed unreliable due to inconsistencies regarding her residence and the circumstances of her departure.

Consequently, the Court found that the applicant fell under the disqualification set out in Section 125(4) CrPC, as she was residing separately without "sufficient cause" and appeared capable of self-maintenance.

The High Court concluded that since the trial court weighed the evidence and found the applicant’s case unproven, there was no perversity warranting interference.

The court affirmed that the applicant is not entitled to maintenance as she failed to prove sufficient grounds for separate residence.

The criminal revision was dismissed as being devoid of merit.