Case Note & Summary
The applicant wife filed a criminal revision application under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order dated 10.06.2020 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Surendranagar, which rejected her application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The wife and the husband were married on 02.05.2014 at Ahmedabad. The wife alleged that she was unemployed and unable to maintain herself, while the husband contended that she held an MBA degree from a reputed university in Pune, had previously worked and earned Rs.15,000 per month, and was capable of earning. The husband also claimed that the wife had suppressed her previous two marriages and that the present marriage was her third, which he argued was invalid under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Family Court dismissed the maintenance application primarily on the ground that the wife was an educated lady and capable of earning. The High Court heard arguments from both sides. The wife's counsel submitted that the husband failed to produce any evidence to show that the wife was actually earning, and that it was the husband's duty to maintain an unemployed wife. The husband's counsel argued that the wife had admitted to having an MBA degree and past employment, and that she had voluntarily left the matrimonial home. The High Court, after considering the submissions and the provisions of Section 125 CrPC, held that the Family Court's order was erroneous. The Court noted that the wife's educational qualification alone does not disentitle her to maintenance; the husband must prove that she is actually earning and able to maintain herself. The husband failed to adduce any evidence of the wife's current income. The High Court also observed that the wife's admission of past employment does not establish present earning capacity. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the Family Court for fresh consideration on merits, directing the Family Court to decide the maintenance application afresh without being influenced by the wife's educational qualification alone.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Maintenance - Section 125 CrPC - Educational Qualification - The Family Court rejected maintenance on the ground that the wife holds an MBA degree and is capable of earning. The High Court held that mere educational qualification or capacity to earn does not disentitle a wife to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC unless the husband proves that she is actually earning and able to maintain herself. The burden lies on the husband to show that the wife has sufficient means. (Paras 1-8) B) Family Law - Maintenance - Section 125 CrPC - Burden of Proof - The husband alleged that the wife was doing job and earning, but failed to produce any evidence. The High Court observed that the husband's bare statement without proof cannot be accepted. The wife's admission of past employment does not prove current income. (Paras 3-8) C) Criminal Law - Revision - Section 397 read with 401 CrPC - Interference - The High Court, in revision, can interfere if the order of the lower court is perverse or based on irrelevant considerations. Here, the Family Court's order was set aside as it was based on the erroneous ground of the wife's educational qualification. (Paras 1, 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Family Court was justified in rejecting the wife's application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC solely on the ground that she is an educated lady capable of earning, without any evidence that she is actually earning.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the impugned order dated 10.06.2020 passed by the Family Court, Surendranagar, and remanded the matter back to the Family Court for fresh consideration on merits, directing that the maintenance application be decided afresh without being influenced by the wife's educational qualification alone.
Law Points
- Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC
- Educational qualification not a bar to maintenance
- Burden of proof on husband to show wife's income
- Wife's capacity to earn not equivalent to actual earnings
