The court dismissed an appeal challenging an order under Section 125 CrPC directing maintenance payment. It held that an able-bodied husband has an absolute legal duty to maintain his wife and cannot claim inability to pay as a valid excuse.
The criminal revision was dismissed; the order directing maintenance payment was upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4014 of 2012
Revisionist :- Arif Husain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Revisionist :- U.P. Srivastava,Ajai Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
By means of this criminal revision, revisionist-applicant has challenged the order dated 7.9.2012, by which application under Section 125 CrPC has been allowed and the revisionist-applicant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- as maintenance to the Opposite Party No.2 and Rs.800/- to O.P. No. 3 and 4 each.
Learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant has submitted that the revisionist-applicant is working as a labourer, as such, he has limited means and is unable to provide maintenance fixed by the court to his wife and daughters and as such, impugned order passed by the court below is bad in the eyes of law being too excessive.
From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the Opposite Party No.2 is the wife of the revisionist-applicant, who is an able bodied person. An able-bodied person has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be reasonably able to maintain his wife and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain her according to the family standard. No cogent grounds have been canvassed as to why such able bodied person is unable for reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation to maintain his wife.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 705 has observed as under:-
It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands there has to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move
hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 CrPC, it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under Section 125 CrPC can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right.
In view of settled legal position, enumerated above, impugned order is just, proper and legal and does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error.
Present criminal revision being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.11.2021 R
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order directing payment of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is bad in law for being too excessive.
Whether the appellant's inability to pay constitutes a valid ground to set aside the maintenance order when he is an able-bodied person.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid KhanReferred¶9
(2015) 5 SCC 705 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Arif Husain
State of U.P.
Rajiv Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
