Path: Home » NEWS against MEN » Divorce » Madhya Pradesh HC Clarifies Section 125 CrPC: Not for Creating Dependent Individuals Waiting for Spousal Maintenance

Madhya Pradesh HC Clarifies Section 125 CrPC: Not for Creating Dependent Individuals Waiting for Spousal Maintenance

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has stressed that the purpose of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is not to create a group of people who are inactive and solely dependent on their spouses for financial support.

In a recent case, the petitioner argued that his wife, who has a master’s degree in commerce (M.Com.), is capable of supporting herself. She previously worked in the film industry and currently runs a dance class.

Justice Prem Narayan Singh, while hearing the case, stated, “Section 125 of CrPC is not designed to create an army of idle people waiting for maintenance from their spouses. It does not imply that a qualified and capable woman should always rely on her spouse for financial support.”

The court further clarified that having educational qualifications alone does not disqualify a wife from receiving maintenance. However, it emphasized that the spouse’s ability to work should also be taken into consideration. The court added, “It is clear from the evidence that the wife is well-qualified and has the potential to earn a livelihood even though she is being supported by her husband.”

Although the court acknowledged the wife’s potential to generate an income, it was important to assess her current employment status. As a result, the court decided to reduce the initial maintenance amount of ₹25,000 per month to ₹20,000, considering her ability to earn. Additionally, the court upheld a separate maintenance award of ₹15,000 per month for the couple’s daughter until she reaches adulthood.

The husband, who filed a revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, argued that the maintenance order was a heavy financial burden. He explained that he was also financially supporting his father and brother.

The court took into account the petitioner’s financial situation, noting that he is a senior manager at HDFC Bank and possesses multiple assets, including a residence in Mumbai and a significant fixed deposit. The court concluded that the petitioner has the means to support his family.

Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *