The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a husband's legal obligation to maintain his minor children continues even where the wife is found ineligible to receive maintenance under Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Setting aside the Family Court's order granting maintenance to the wife, the Court concluded that the reasons accepted for her separate residence were not legally sufficient under the statute. At the same time, it enhanced the monthly maintenance payable to the couple's two children.
Background of the Case
The revision petition challenged a Family Court order dated March 8, 2022, which had directed the husband to pay ₹10,000 per month to his wife and ₹5,000 each to their two children under Section 125 CrPC.
Before the High Court, the husband argued that the Family Court had overlooked Section 125(4) CrPC, which bars maintenance where a wife refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason. He also relied on earlier proceedings in which he had been acquitted in a criminal case and contended that the Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record.
Court's Observation
Justice Jai Kumar Pillai examined the reasoning adopted by the Family Court and held that mere differences between a wife and her in-laws or the husband's attention towards his parents cannot, by themselves, amount to a legally sufficient reason for living separately.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
The Court observed:
“A lack of harmony with in-laws or a husband paying attention to his parents and family members cannot, under any circumstance, be construed as a justifiable or sufficient ground for a wife to leave the matrimonial home and subsequently claim maintenance.”
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court's rulings interpreting Section 125(4) CrPC and reiterated that a wife is disentitled to maintenance if she refuses to live with her husband without sufficient cause. It further held that the Family Court's reasoning was contrary to the statutory requirement.
The Court also noted that earlier criminal proceedings had ended in acquittal and considered the findings from connected civil proceedings while examining whether the wife had established a legally sustainable justification for residing separately. However, the judgment was confined to deciding the maintenance dispute based on the material before the Court.
Maintenance of Children
While denying maintenance to the wife, the High Court made it clear that the husband's obligation towards his minor children remained unaffected.
The bench observed:
“The disqualification of the wife does not legally or morally absolve the revisionist of his primary liability to maintain his minor children.”
Taking note of prevailing economic conditions, the Court found it appropriate to increase the maintenance payable to the children from ₹5,000 each to ₹7,500 each per month, raising the total monthly amount to ₹15,000.
Decision
The High Court partly allowed the criminal revision and modified the Family Court's order.
It set aside the direction granting ₹10,000 per month as maintenance to the wife and dismissed her maintenance claim under Section 125 CrPC. However, it enhanced the maintenance payable to the two minor children to ₹7,500 each per month, effective from the date of the original maintenance application.
The husband was also directed to clear the arrears, after adjustment of any amount already paid, within three months.
Case Details
Case Title: L. v. Smt. A. and Others
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 1229 of 2022
Judge: Justice Jai Kumar Pillai
Decision Date: 8 July 2026
