Court Upholds Maintenance Obligation Despite Wife's Parental Support
High Court Ruling on Maintenance Responsibilities
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a husband cannot evade his obligation to provide maintenance simply because his distressed wife is receiving financial assistance from her parents. This decision came as the court approved a criminal revision petition filed by the wife and her two minor children against a Family Court order from Bulandshahr. In December 2023, the Family Court had completely dismissed the wife's claim for maintenance, although it had set a monthly maintenance amount of ₹3,000 for each child. While granting the petition, Justice Garima Prasad emphasized that a wife cannot be denied maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC solely because her parents are providing her with financial support during tough times.
Court's Emphasis on Legal Obligations
The court stressed that the income of the wife's parents should not be considered her income, and the assistance provided by them cannot substitute the husband's legal duty to support his wife. Initially, the wife had filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC, claiming that she had faced harassment, taunts, and cruelty from her husband and his family since their marriage. She alleged that her husband, a retired military officer, had severed their marital ties and later informed her that he had remarried.
Allegations of Abuse and Financial Dependency
The wife claimed that in January 2020, she was physically assaulted and subsequently expelled from her in-laws' home along with her children. Since then, she has been living with her parents, relying on them for financial support as she has no independent source of income. In response to her application, the husband contended that the wife left the marital home without valid reasons and accused her of having illicit relationships. He also mentioned that during his service, he had been deducting ₹11,303 monthly from his salary to support his wife and children until his retirement in November 2020. Post-retirement, he receives a pension of approximately ₹21,025 monthly and claims to have no other income sources. After hearing both sides, the Family Court did not find the wife's claims credible, as she failed to substantiate allegations of dowry demands, abuse, or a second marriage.