The Patna High Court has ruled that a wife cannot be denied maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code merely because the husband levels allegations of desertion or moral misconduct without providing convincing proof. The Court emphasized that the purpose of Section 125 is social welfare, meant to prevent destitution among wives, children, and parents, and therefore must be applied with sensitivity rather than rigid technicality.
In the case before the Court, the husband opposed the maintenance claim on the ground that his wife was allegedly living in adultery. The Family Court accepted this contention and denied her maintenance. On revision, however, the High Court found that the husband had produced no substantive evidence to support such a grave allegation. The Court clarified that the expression “living in adultery” refers to a continuous course of adulterous conduct, not isolated lapses or mere suspicion. It held that even if a wife has committed one or two moral missteps, such incidents do not amount to living in adultery and cannot legally disentitle her from maintenance.
The Court further observed that proceedings under Section 125 are summary in nature, designed not to adjudicate matrimonial wrongs in depth but to ensure that dependants are not left without means of survival. Unlike complex matrimonial trials, these proceedings rely on a prima facie understanding of the marital relationship rather than strict rules of evidence. As long as the marital relationship is not seriously disputed or disproved, the burden lies on the husband to show that a statutory bar applies. In this case, he failed to do so.
Addressing the issue of desertion, the Court held that even if a wife leaves the matrimonial home, she may still be entitled to maintenance if she had reasonable grounds for living separately. Mere allegations of desertion without proof of wrongful conduct are insufficient to deprive her of support. The husband cannot avoid his legal obligation by simply accusing the wife of misconduct or claiming that she left without justification.
The Court also reiterated that technical objections about marital validity should not be used to defeat the humanitarian object of Section 125. Maintenance under this provision operates independently of more complex matrimonial determinations. Its aim is to ensure that no wife is left without financial support simply because of unresolved disputes or unsupported accusations.
In setting aside the Family Court’s refusal to grant maintenance, the High Court underscored that provisions like Section 125 are intended to uphold dignity and prevent neglect. Unsupported allegations of immorality or desertion cannot override this purpose. The Court restored the wife’s entitlement to maintenance, reaffirming that claims under Section 125 must be examined through the lens of social justice and the essential duty of a husband to ensure the sustenance of his spouse.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.