The Allahabad High Court recently emphasised that a husband bears the duty of providing maintenance to his wife under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), even if he has no income from his job. The court, led by Justice Renu Agarwal, referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Anju Garg vs Deepak Kumar Garg (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 805), highlighting that a husband, if able-bodied, must earn money through physical labour, unless legally excused as per the statute.
The context of this statement arose in a criminal revision plea filed by a husband under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act. The husband contested an order from a Family Court in Unnao, issued under Section 125 CrPC, directing him to pay Rs 2,000 per month as maintenance to his wife from the date of application.
The husband claimed that after marrying his wife in May 2015, she returned to her parental home just four days into their married life. Despite his efforts to reconcile, she refused to return. He further argued that his suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights was pending, but his wife filed a maintenance application under Section 125 CrPC. The family court granted maintenance without considering her voluntary departure from their matrimonial home without a valid reason, as she had been residing at her parental home since January 2016.
The husband, stating he was a labourer suffering from serious illness and residing in a rented accommodation, contended that his wife, a graduate, was earning enough to sustain herself.
Contrarily, the wife asserted that she left her matrimonial home due to dowry-related cruelty. She argued that the husband owned agricultural land, worked in a factory with a monthly salary of Rs. 10,000, and earned an additional R—50,0000 monthly from his salary, milk products business, and agricultural land.
Examining the facts, the court noted that the family court, after reviewing evidence of the husband’s medical treatment, found no serious illness. While the wife failed to provide evidence of the husband’s work in a salt factory or running a Maruti Van on rent, the court maintained clear evidence of the husband being healthy, capable of earning money and obligated to maintain his wife.
“For the sake of argument, if the court presumed that revisionist has no income from his job or from the rent of Maruti Van, even then revisionist is duty bound to provide maintenance to his wife, as is held Apex Court in the case of Anju Garg Vs. Deepak Kumar Garg 2022 and if he engaged himself in labour work also too then also he may earn as un-skilled labour about Rs.350/- to Rs.400/- per day as minimum wages,” the Court noted.
In addition, the court observed that the revisionist failed to present any evidence during the trial indicating that his wife was engaged in adultery, which could have disqualified her from receiving maintenance.
Considering this context, the court rejected his revision plea and affirmed the family court’s decision. The family court had instructed him to pay Rs. 2000/- per month from the date of the application, with the maintenance arrears to be settled in five convenient quarterly equal instalments.
