Wife Who Sold Property For Rs 27 Lakh: Karnataka HC Upholds Maintenance Denial, Citing No Proof Of Husband’s Neglect Or Greater Financial Means

In brief

The question

Whether the Family Court erred in dismissing the wife’s claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The court held

The High Court held that the wife had not established grounds for maintenance and found no basis to interfere with the Family Court’s decision.

It also directed

It dismissed the revision petition.

01Facts

The wife filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking monthly maintenance of ₹15,000, alleging cruelty, an extramarital relationship, and that her husband had income from work as a night watchman and from a cycle shop.

p. 2 · ¶ 2 · p. 3 · ¶ 4

The Family Court dismissed the petition after considering the oral and documentary evidence.

p. 2 · ¶ 2

The wife challenged that dismissal under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act.

p. 1 · p. 2 · ¶ 2

In revision, the High Court considered evidence that the wife had sold property for ₹27,00,000; she admitted the sale consideration in cross-examination.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 8

02Issues

i.Whether the Family Court erred in dismissing the wife’s claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

pp. 2, 8–9 · ¶ 2, 10–11

ii.Whether the wife established that her husband had neglected or refused to maintain her and was financially better placed than she was.

p. 8 · ¶ 10

03Law Applied

Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides the basis for a wife who is unable to maintain herself to seek maintenance from her husband.

p. 8 · ¶ 10

The Court treated proof of neglect or refusal to maintain, and the parties’ respective financial circumstances, as material to the claim.

p. 8 · ¶ 10

The petition was brought in revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act.

p. 1

The wife’s counsel cited several decisions concerning a husband’s duty to maintain his wife, including Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai; however, the judgment does not set out or apply a specific proposition from those authorities.

p. 4 · ¶ 5

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Family Courts Act, 1984 Section 19

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 125

04Reasoning

The Court found that the wife had not established specific instances of cruelty or harassment, the alleged extramarital relationship, or that the husband ran a cycle shop and earned the asserted income.

p. 7 · ¶ 9

It also relied on evidence that she had received ₹27,00,000 from the sale of property and found that she had not shown that the husband was in a better financial position.

pp. 6–8 · ¶ 8, 10

On the evidence as a whole, the Court concluded that she had not proved neglect or refusal by the husband to maintain her.

p. 8 · ¶ 10