In Proceedings U/S 125 Cr.P.C., Refusal Or Neglect To Maintain To Be Proved, Not Cruelty: Delhi High Court Allows Maintenance To Wife Accused Of Adultery

The Delhi High Court while allowing maintenance to a wife accused of adultery observed that in cases under Section- 125 Cr.P.C. what must be proved is the refusal or neglect to maintain, not cruelty per se.

The Court was considering a Revision Petition against an order passed by the Family Court whereby the Wife was awarded maintenance of ₹4,000/- along with maintenance of ₹2,000/- for child.

The single bench of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma observed, "....As the provision itself indicates, a wife is entitled to maintenance – if she establishes that her husband has refused or neglected to maintain her, and that she is unable to maintain herself. Thus, what must be proved is the refusal or neglect to maintain, not cruelty per se."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Arvind Kumar Singh while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Abhinav Rathi.

Facts of the Case

The marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent was solemnized in 2000, and out of the said wedlock, three children were born. It is the case of the Wife that the Husband was a habitual drunkard and he used to physically assault her under the influence of alcohol. Due to continuous instances of such assaults, the Wife had lodged a complaint in 2017. Later, the Husband took the Wife along with their two daughters, to her parental home and due to such marital discord, the parties have been residing separately since then.

In 2018, the Wife filed a Petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking maintenance which was allowed by the Family Court by way of the impugned order.

Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the contradictions in Wife's statement point out that she has falsely alleged the incidents of cruelty against the Husband. He further disputed the authenticity of the complaints filed on the grounds of alleged incidents of cruelty against the present Petitioner and rather contended that the Petitioner himself has been a victim of desertion by the Wife. It is also argued that the Wife was living in an adulterous relationship, and in view of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., she was not entitled to maintenance.

On the other hand, Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Husband was not able to prove by leading any evidence that the Wife had been living in adultery. It was also averred that the Family Court had assessed the income of the Husband on the basis of the minimum wages as were prevalent at the time of passing the impugned judgment. It

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset dealt with the adulterous relationship allegations and observed that the Family Court has clearly stated that the Petitioner was unable to place any material on record to even prima facie establish that the Respondent- Wife had been living in a continuous adulterous relationship, if any.

Noting that while deciding cases under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the standard of proof is not that of beyond reasonable doubt, as is applicable in criminal trials, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Rina Kumar v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto to reiterate that proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are not criminal, but civil in nature.

"....This Court finds no error in the learned Family Court‟s conclusion that the respondent had sufficient reasons to reside separately from the petitioner. In any event, this Court is of the opinion that a husband‟s bald allegation of adultery against his wife, unsupported by any evidence, can by itself constitute mental cruelty upon the wife," the Court observed.

It was additionally of the view that Family Court committed no error in assessing the Petitioner‟s income on the basis of minimum wages.

"....It also rightly took into account the fact that the petitioner was responsible for the care of his two daughters and had to allocate part of his earnings for their welfare......There is also no infirmity in the learned Family Court's reasoning, based on the affidavit of assets and liabilities filed by the parties, and the evidence led to the effect that the respondent-wife had no independent source of income. The petitioner-husband was unable to produce any evidence to show that the respondent was employed or earning. Therefore, after assessing the petitioner‟s income at approximately ₹20,000/- per month based on minimum wages, the learned Family Court rightly awarded maintenance of ₹4,000/- per month to the respondent-wife," the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly rejected.

Cause Title: Raju Bose vs. Smt. Rinki Bose (2025:DHC:4861)

Click here to read/ download Order