Path: Home » NEWS against MEN » Divorce » Section 125 CrPC Not Intended to Create Dependents: Madhya Pradesh HC

Section 125 CrPC Not Intended to Create Dependents: Madhya Pradesh HC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that the maintenance provisions under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) are not intended to create a “dependent class” of people who rely solely on their spouses for financial support.

In this case, the petitioner argued that his wife, who holds an M.Com degree and has prior work experience in the film industry and dance teaching, is capable of supporting herself. He contended that she should not be entitled to maintenance.

A Bench led by Justice Prem Narayan Singh emphasized that while Section 125 CrPC provides for the maintenance of spouses, it is not meant to enable individuals who are well-qualified and capable of earning to remain dependent on their spouses. The court stated, “Section 125 of CrPC is not meant to create an army of idle or inactive people waiting for maintenance from their spouse. A qualified woman need not always be dependent on her spouse for financial support.”

The court further explained that while educational qualifications alone do not disqualify a spouse from receiving maintenance, the ability to secure employment should be considered. In this case, evidence showed that the wife was well-qualified and had the potential to earn an income based on her past employment and current qualifications.

Considering her capacity to earn, the court reduced the initially ordered maintenance amount of ₹25,000 per month to ₹20,000 per month. Additionally, the court upheld a separate maintenance award of ₹15,000 per month for the couple’s daughter, which will continue until she reaches adulthood.

The husband, a senior manager at HDFC Bank, argued that the maintenance order placed a heavy financial burden on him since he was also responsible for supporting his father and brother. However, during the cross-examination, it was revealed that the petitioner owned significant assets, including a residence in Mumbai and a large fixed deposit.

The court concluded that the petitioner had sufficient financial resources to support both his wife and daughter.

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Your email address will not be published.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 *