The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that the purpose of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is not to create an “army of idle or inactive people” who depend entirely on their spouses for maintenance. The ruling came in a case where a husband challenged the amount of maintenance awarded to his wife.
The petitioner argued that his wife, an M.Com graduate, had previously worked in the film industry and was also running a dance class, making her capable of earning and supporting herself.
Justice Prem Narayan Singh, while reducing the monthly maintenance from ₹25,000 to ₹20,000, observed:
“Section 125 CrPC is not meant to make educated and able individuals dependent on their spouses. A qualified woman cannot always rely on her husband for financial support.”
The court acknowledged that a wife’s educational qualifications alone do not disqualify her from receiving maintenance, but her ability to earn must be considered. Since the wife had prior employment experience and the potential to generate income, the court decided the earlier amount was excessive.
Additionally, the court upheld a separate maintenance of ₹15,000 per month for the couple’s daughter until she reaches adulthood.
The husband, a senior manager at HDFC Bank, argued that he already supports his father and brother. However, during cross-examination, he admitted to owning a house in Mumbai and having significant fixed deposits. The court noted that he has the financial capacity to maintain both his wife and daughter, while also considering the wife’s ability to earn some income.
This judgment highlights the balance courts seek between ensuring financial security for dependents and preventing misuse of maintenance laws.
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==
