An Able-Bodied Husband Cannot Avoid Legal Duty To Maintain Wife On Grounds Of Financial Constraints: Calcutta High Court

The High Court was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by the wife challenging the Family Court’s decision to reject her maintenance claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

A Single Judge Bench comprising of Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee observed that “...it is well settled, as long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of section 125 Cr.P.C, it has to be awarded so that she can live with dignity as she would have live in her matrimonial home and she cannot be compelled to become a destitute. Since it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife, he cannot be permitted to take the plea that he is unable to maintain the wife due to financial constraint as long as he is capable of earning.”

Advocate Satadru Lahiri appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate Sandipan Ganguly represented the respondent.

Background

The petitioner had sought monthly maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. after allegedly being denied entry to her matrimonial home and deprived of her stridhan. The Family Court had initially granted interim maintenance of ₹4,000 per month, which was upheld by both the High Court and the Supreme Court.

However, during the trial of the main maintenance proceeding, the husband opposed her claim, contending that she was employed and drawing a salary, while he was jobless after the termination of his employment.

The Family Court eventually dismissed her plea for maintenance, reasoning that a “jobless” person could not be directed to maintain his wife, particularly as she had some income of her own.

Aggrieved, the wife approached the High Court, asserting that the lower court’s order ignored the settled principles of law governing Section 125 Cr.P.C., including the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife in accordance with his status and lifestyle.

Court’s Observations

The Calcutta High Court, at the outset, examined the conditions governing entitlement under Section 125 CrPC, holding that the marital relationship stood admitted, and the husband’s liability could not be evaded on the plea of unemployment.

The Court then noted that the Family Court had erred in presuming that an able-bodied unemployed man could not be directed to pay maintenance, holding that “…the proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C.,is a measure of social justice and has been enacted to protect vagrant wife, though its object is never to punish the husband and such enactment falls within the constitutional mandate of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.”

The High Court further clarified that the wife's earnings cannot be a ground for refusing her maintenance, underscoring that “...there is nothing to show that the wife is sufficiently earning to maintain herself in the same status and strata with the husband and the opposite party has not adduced any positive evidence to that effect”

Taking note of the fact that the husband himself had admitted that his family’s economic status was higher than that of the wife’s paternal family, the Court remarked that “…the object of section 125 of the Code is to ensure sustenance of the wife at the same status and strata of the husband but not merely an animal sustenance and therefore wife’s earning of Rs. 12,000/- per month cannot be a ground for refusing her maintenance specially when husband admitted that his economic status is higher.”

While emphasising the “able-bodied theory”, the Court said that a husband cannot avoid his duty to maintain his wife by choosing to remain unemployed or by relying on the support of his parents. The Bench held that “the opposite party had been sacked from his job due to his default i.e. irregularity and the husband is not being the disabled person cannot remain unemployed unless he chooses to remain so and this is his wilful act/decision which does not come within the purview of not ‘having sufficient means' to maintain the wife.”

Ultimately, the High Court found that the reasoning adopted by the Family Court in denying maintenance was wholly unsustainable, observing that “the order impugned is not only speculative but also perverse where Court observed that ‘one of the tests for making sound order is the probability of it being executed.’

Conclusion

Allowing the revision petition, the Calcutta High Court set aside the Family Court’s order and directed the husband to pay ₹4,000 per month towards maintenance from the date of filing of the application.

The arrears were ordered to be cleared in twelve equal monthly instalments, failing which the wife was granted liberty to execute the order before the competent court.

Cause Title: Rinki Chakraborty Nee Das Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr (Neutral Citation: 2025:CHC-AS:1792)

Appearances

Petitioner: Advocates Satadru Lahiri, Mahua Chattopadhyay, Safdar Azam

Respondent: Advocates Sandipan Ganguly, Debajyoti Deb, Shyamal Mondal, Somdyuti Parekh

Click here to read/download Judgment