House Allotment Under Welfare Scheme Not Source Of Livelihood Disentitling Wife From Claiming Maintenance: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court was considering a criminal revision challenging the judgment of the Family Court in a maintenance case under Section 125 of the CrPC.
While upholding an order granting maintenance in the wife’s favour, the Allahabad High Court has held that allotment of a residential house under a welfare scheme cannot be treated as a source of livelihood, disentitling a wife from claiming maintenance.
The High Court was considering a criminal revision challenging the judgment of the Family Court in a maintenance case under Section 125 of the CrPC, whereby the application filed by the opposite party (wife) was allowed. The revisionist husband was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs 4,000 per month from the date of institution of the proceedings and Rs 5,000 per month from the date of the order.
The Single Bench of Justice Garima Prashad held, “Mere assertions in pleadings, unsupported by satisfactory evidence, cannot be accepted as proof of financial independence. Likewise, allotment of a residential house under a welfare scheme cannot be treated as a source of livelihood disentitling a wife from claiming maintenance.”
Advocate Shravan Kumar Pandey represented the Revisionist.
Factual Background
It was alleged that the wife’s marriage to the revisionist was solemnised in 2016 according to Muslim rites and customs. After the marriage, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demands for additional dowry and was eventually compelled to leave the matrimonial home. It was further alleged that despite possessing sufficient means, the revisionist neglected and refused to maintain her. On these averments, maintenance of Rs 20,000 per month was claimed.
The revisionist contested the proceedings by filing objections. While admitting the marital relationship, he denied the allegations levelled by the wife and pleaded that she had left the matrimonial home on her own accord. It was also pleaded that the opposite party was earning through sewing work and had also been allotted a house under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana. The Trial Court, after finding that the revisionist had failed to maintain his wife despite the subsistence of the marital relationship, accordingly awarded maintenance in her favour.
Reasoning
Reaffirming that the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to prevent destitution and vagrancy and to provide a swift and efficacious remedy to a wife who is unable to maintain herself, the Bench stated that the provision is a measure of social justice intended to protect women from neglect and abandonment.
The revisionist had sought to contend that the wife was earning through sewing and embroidery work and was therefore not entitled to maintenance. However, the Bench found no cogent evidence on record to establish that the wife had a regular and sufficient source of income enabling her to maintain herself.
Considering the prevailing cost of living and the object sought to be achieved by Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Bench found the award of maintenance by the Family Court, i.e. Rs 4,000 per month from the date of institution of proceedings and Rs 5,000 per month from the date of the order to be justified.
“It is equally well settled that while exercising revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not sit as a court of appeal to reassess or re-appreciate evidence merely because another view may be possible. Interference is warranted only where the findings suffer from manifest illegality, perversity or material irregularity resulting in miscarriage of justice. No such infirmity has been demonstrated in the present case”, it added.
Holding that the findings recorded by the Family Court did not suffer from any illegality, the Bench dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: A v. State of UP (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:127679)
Appearance
Revisionist: Advocates Shravan Kumar Pandey, Shyam Narain Pandey