Wife’s maintenance claim is deniable for failing to establish sufficient cause for separate residence.

The marriage between Applicant No. 1 and the Non-applicant was solemnized on April 15, 2016, and resulted in the birth of Applicant No. 2

The applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC seeking ₹15,000 monthly maintenance, alleging that the Non-applicant subjected Applicant No. 1 to cruelty regarding dowry demands and expelled her from the matrimonial home

They claimed the Non-applicant earns approximately ₹40,000 per month from private employment and ₹2,00,000 annually from agricultural land

On February 13, 2026, the Family Court, Khairagarh, rejected the wife's claim for maintenance, citing her failure to establish sufficient cause for living separately, but granted ₹2,500 per month to the minor son

The applicants moved the High Court in revision to set aside the rejection and enhance the child's maintenance

1. Whether the Family Court erred in rejecting the maintenance claim of Applicant No. 1 on the grounds that she failed to establish sufficient cause to live separately

2. Whether the maintenance amount of ₹2,500 per month awarded to the minor child (Applicant No. 2) was inadequate and required enhancement

The Court applied Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which mandates maintenance for wives and children

Under this section, a wife is entitled to maintenance only if she has sufficient reason to live separately from her husband

The Court also highlighted the inherent legal obligation of a father to maintain his dependent minor children regardless of matrimonial disputes

The High Court found that the Family Court properly exercised its judicial discretion after appreciating the evidence on record

Regarding Applicant No. 1, the Court noted that the rejection of her maintenance claim was based on a factual finding that she failed to prove "sufficient cause" for separate residence, a prerequisite for relief under Section 125 CrPC

The Court determined that this finding was neither erroneous nor unjustified

Concerning Applicant No. 2, the Court observed that the Family Court fulfilled the father’s legal obligation by awarding maintenance to the minor dependent

Upon review of the impugned order, the High Court concluded there was no illegality or infirmity in the lower court's decision regarding the quantum or the eligibility of the parties

The Court affirmed the Family Court’s order, maintaining the rejection of maintenance for the wife and the award of ₹2,500 per month for the minor son

The Office was directed to communicate the order to the concerned Family Court for compliance