The Gauhati High Court recently ruled that a husband cannot escape his legal obligation to pay maintenance to his wife by signing an agreement to the contrary. Under Section 125 CrPC, a wife’s right to receive maintenance is a statutory right. The bench, led by Justice Rumi Kumari Phukan, heard a plea filed by a wife challenging a trial court’s order denying her maintenance based on an agreement she had with her husband.
The couple married on March 10, 2016. Within three months, the wife claimed she was subjected to torture by her husband and in-laws, who demanded dowry. She subsequently lodged a criminal case against them. During settlement negotiations, the wife allegedly agreed that her parents would cover her expenses while she stayed at her parental home.
Despite this agreement, the husband never attempted to bring her back to their matrimonial home. The wife, who was pursuing undergraduate studies, sought maintenance. The husband, however, accused her of leading an adulterous life, citing entries in her personal diary that indicated an inclination towards another man before their marriage.
The trial court dismissed the husband’s adultery claim, noting the wife’s feelings were from before their marriage. Nevertheless, the court ruled against the wife, leading to her appeal before the High Court.
The High Court observed that the wife had been living at her parental home since January 2017 without any maintenance from her husband. Despite her ongoing education, the husband, a school teacher earning around ₹22,000 per month, had not provided any financial support.
Justice Phukan noted the husband’s vague objections and failure to explain the circumstances leading to his wife’s stay at her parental home or the filing of the FIR against him. This evasive behavior suggested he had not properly cared for his wife.
Moreover, the court highlighted that the husband’s attempt to claim adultery based on the wife’s pre-marital feelings was unfounded. The court declared the agreement between the husband and wife void under Section 125 CrPC, affirming that such agreements cannot nullify a husband’s maintenance obligations.
The High Court set aside the trial court’s order, directing it to reconsider the matter. Both parties were instructed to appear before the trial court on June 14, 2022, for further proceedings.
Conclusion
The Gauhati High Court’s decision underscores the importance of a husband’s statutory duty to support his wife and clarifies that agreements attempting to evade this responsibility are invalid. This ruling reaffirms the protection of marital rights and the legal obligations inherent in marriage.
