The Rajasthan High Court recently delivered an important ruling on the question of maintenance to a wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reiterating the principle that an able-bodied husband is presumed capable of earning sufficient income to support his wife. The order came in response to a petition filed by a woman seeking enhancement of the maintenance granted to her by a Family Court, which she contended was inadequate in view of her husband’s financial capacity.
The background of the case revealed that the Family Court had initially awarded the wife a maintenance of ₹4,000 per month. Dissatisfied with the amount, the wife approached the High Court, arguing that her husband was financially well-placed and had the means to provide her with a higher standard of support. According to the submissions made, the husband owned 45 bighas of ancestral agricultural land, which generated approximately ₹9 lakhs annually. Additionally, he was said to be cultivating other land taken on contract, from which he earned an extra ₹2.5 lakhs annually. Taken together, the wife argued, the husband’s annual income was close to ₹12 lakhs, which justified an enhanced monthly maintenance.
The wife further submitted that the amount of ₹4,000 was grossly inadequate in the present economic climate, especially considering the rising cost of living and her inability to sustain herself independently. She emphasized that under Section 125 CrPC, maintenance is not a matter of charity but a statutory right intended to prevent a wife from being left destitute or financially dependent.
The husband, however, disputed the claims about his income. He argued that his agricultural income was not as high as alleged and that he was already under financial strain. Despite these arguments, the High Court emphasized that the law presumes an able-bodied husband has the responsibility and the capacity to earn enough to maintain his wife, regardless of whether he has specific employment or business at the time. The Court noted that merely denying higher earnings is not sufficient; a husband must demonstrate valid reasons if he is unable to provide adequate support.
Taking into account the husband’s agricultural holdings and the submissions presented, the Court held that the Family Court’s award of ₹4,000 was indeed insufficient. The High Court recognized that the wife was entitled to live with dignity and that maintenance must be fixed in proportion to the husband’s income and the standard of living to which she was accustomed during the marriage.
Accordingly, the Court enhanced the monthly maintenance from ₹4,000 to ₹8,000, directing the husband to pay the revised amount regularly. The order reaffirmed the settled principle that financial responsibility toward a wife cannot be evaded by downplaying one’s income and that maintenance must ensure her dignity and subsistence.
Through this judgment, the Rajasthan High Court once again underlined the social and legal duty of husbands to maintain their wives and provided relief to the petitioner by ensuring that her right to adequate support was meaningfully protected.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.