Background of the Case

The present criminal revision was filed before the Allahabad High Court challenging the order dated 17.02.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar. By the said order, the Family Court directed the husband, Ankit Saha, to pay a monthly maintenance of ₹5,000 to his wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 from the date of filing of the application. Aggrieved by this direction, the husband approached the High Court seeking setting aside of the impugned order.

Contentions of the Revisionist (Husband)

The revisionist argued that the wife had not approached the Family Court with clean hands. It was submitted that she falsely claimed to be unemployed and illiterate in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In reality, she was a postgraduate, qualified web designer, and employed as a Senior Sales Coordinator in a private company, earning approximately ₹36,000 per month. The husband further contended that Section 125 Cr.P.C. permits maintenance only when the wife is unable to maintain herself, which was clearly not the case here. He also highlighted his responsibility to maintain his aged parents, while the wife had no such liabilities.

Submissions on Behalf of the State

The learned AGA opposed the revision but could not dispute the factual position regarding the wife’s educational qualifications and employment. It was conceded that the wife was earning a stable monthly income. The State primarily defended the Family Court’s intention of maintaining parity in the standard of living between the parties.

Statutory Framework: Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The High Court examined the scope of Section 125 Cr.P.C., which provides maintenance to a wife only if she is unable to maintain herself. The provision is intended as a measure of social justice to prevent destitution and vagrancy, not as a mechanism for income balancing between spouses.

Findings of the High Court

The Court observed that the Family Court had acknowledged the wife’s employment and income but still granted maintenance without properly appreciating the statutory requirement. It held that an income of ₹36,000 per month for a wife with no dependents cannot be considered insufficient for self-maintenance. Conversely, the husband’s obligation to support his aged parents was not adequately considered by the trial court.

Suppression of Material Facts

A crucial factor influencing the Court’s decision was the wife’s suppression of material facts. The High Court noted that she had deliberately concealed her employment and income in her pleadings and admitted the same only during cross-examination. The Court reiterated the settled principle that a litigant must approach the court with clean hands and full disclosure of material facts.

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent

The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Rekha Sharad Ushir v. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsanstha Ltd., which held that suppression of material facts disentitles a litigant from any relief. Courts should not encourage misuse of judicial process through false pleadings.

Final Decision

In view of the above findings, the Allahabad High Court held that the wife was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The impugned order of the Family Court was set aside, and the criminal revision was allowed. The judgment reinforces that maintenance laws are meant for genuine cases of financial dependency and not for unjust enrichment