The Kerala High Court has reiterated that loan repayments or personal financial liabilities of a husband cannot be used as a shield to reduce or avoid his statutory obligation to pay maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court emphasized that Section 125 is a social justice and welfare provision meant to prevent destitution of wives, children, and parents who are unable to maintain themselves.
In the case discussed, the husband argued that he was already burdened with multiple loans and that these repayments consumed a significant portion of his income. On this basis, he requested the court to either reduce or waive the maintenance ordered in favour of his wife. The Court, however, rejected this argument, noting that loan payments are voluntary financial commitments made by the husband, often for personal benefit, and therefore cannot outweigh the legally mandated responsibility to maintain dependents.
The Court observed that maintenance is not charity but a legal right, and a husband cannot rearrange his financial priorities in a manner that deprives his legally dependent wife or children of their basic needs. The Court further held that when determining maintenance, the primary consideration must be the reasonable needs of the wife and the paying capacity of the husband, assessed in light of his actual earnings—rather than his self-created liabilities.
The judgment also clarified that while genuine financial hardship may be considered in exceptional cases, the mere existence of loans is not sufficient grounds for reducing maintenance. A husband is expected to manage his finances responsibly and in a manner that ensures consistent compliance with maintenance orders. If he has outstanding obligations, it is his duty to reorganize his expenditure without compromising the subsistence needs of his dependents.
Ultimately, the Court reaffirmed the principle that maintenance liability takes precedence over personal loans, and that no dependent should suffer simply because the husband has chosen to incur debt. The ruling reinforces the consistent judicial position that Section 125 CrPC must be interpreted liberally in favour of protecting vulnerable dependents from hardship.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.