The Allahabad High Court has stepped in to correct what it described as a harsh and legally flawed approach by a Family Court that denied maintenance to a wife while granting only a token amount to her teenage son. Setting aside the earlier order, the High Court ruled that a woman’s education or supposed earning capacity cannot, by itself, defeat her statutory right to maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a long-running marital conflict between Smt. Suman Verma and her husband. The couple married in May 2006 according to Hindu rites and have a son, now around 15 years old.
According to the wife, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty and was forced to leave the matrimonial home along with her child. She later approached the Family Court at Bulandshahr seeking monthly maintenance for herself and her son under Section 125 CrPC.
In October 2024, the Family Court rejected her claim for maintenance altogether, holding that she was living separately “without sufficient cause.” It granted only ₹3,000 per month for the minor son. Aggrieved, the wife and child moved the High Court in revision, seeking a fair reassessment.
Arguments Before the High Court
Counsel for the wife argued that the Family Court wrongly penalised her for refusing to return to the matrimonial home during proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act. It was also pointed out that she had no independent income and was dependent on her parents, while the husband was a salaried government employee earning over ₹48,000 per month.
Read also:- Pension Claim Rejected After 16 Years: Jharkhand HC Backs Bihar Govt in EPF vs Pension Dispute Case
The husband, on the other hand, claimed that the wife was well-qualified, capable of earning, and had concealed her educational background. He even went to the extent of disputing the paternity of the child an assertion the Family Court itself had rejected for lack of evidence.
Court’s Observations
Justice Garima Prashad, after examining the record, found multiple errors in the Family Court’s reasoning. The High Court noted that refusal to resume cohabitation, even after a restitution decree, does not automatically disentitle a wife from maintenance.
“The statutory right of a wife to maintenance cannot be taken away merely because she is educated or may have the capacity to earn,” the Court observed, emphasising that potential earning ability is not the same as actual, sufficient income.
Read also:- Gauhati High Court Drops Abetment Charge, Keeps Rape & POCSO Case Alive in Assam Love Affair Suicide Case
The Court also took serious note of the husband’s conduct in denying fatherhood of the child. It remarked that such a stance appeared to be an attempt to evade responsibility and added to the wife’s hardship rather than disproving her claim.
On the issue of the child’s maintenance, the Court called the ₹3,000 award “meagre,” especially considering the boy’s age, educational needs, and the father’s admitted salary.
Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents
The High Court relied on established Supreme Court rulings to underline the purpose of Section 125 CrPC. Quoting past judgments, it reiterated that maintenance is a measure of social justice meant to prevent destitution and ensure dignity.
“The fact that a woman could work is not the end of the matter,” the bench noted, adding that maintenance must allow her to live with reasonable comfort, not mere survival.
The Court also criticised the Family Court for allowing excessive deductions from the husband’s salary, which had the effect of artificially reducing his net income on paper.
The Decision
In conclusion, the High Court held that both the wife and the minor son are legally entitled to maintenance from the husband. It set aside the October 2024 order of the Family Court and remanded the matter for fresh determination of maintenance amounts.
The Family Court has been directed to pass a reasoned order within one month, keeping in mind the principles laid down by higher courts and the observations made in this judgment.
All issues on the merits have been left open for reconsideration.
Case Title: Smt. Suman Verma and Another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 5971 of 2024
