Alleged Recession Or Closure Of Business No Ground To Deny Maintenance To Wife; Able-Bodied Husband Presumed Capable Of Earning: Gujarat High Court
The Court held that mere assertion of financial hardship without supporting material cannot absolve a husband of his statutory obligation to maintain his wife, particularly when he is able-bodied and has earning capacity.
The Gujarat High Court has held that a husband cannot avoid payment of maintenance on the ground of alleged business recession or closure in the absence of cogent material, reiterating that an able-bodied husband is presumed to be capable of earning sufficient income to maintain his wife.
The Court was hearing a criminal revision application under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC challenging the order of the Family Court directing the husband to pay ₹50,000 per month as maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
A Bench of Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar observed: “… alleged recession or close down of the business in absence of any material is not enough to deny the maintenance more particularly considering able bodied husband is presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and cannot contend that he is not in position to sufficiently maintain his family and the onus is on the husband to establish that the necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family and discharge his legal obligation for reason beyond his control”.
Advocate Ashish M. Dagli appeared for the applicant-husband, while Advocate Darshit Brahmbhatt appeared for the respondent-wife, and Rohan Raval, APP, appeared for the State.
Background
The respondent-wife had filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance, contending that she had been subjected to neglect and had not been provided adequate financial support by the applicant-husband.
The Family Court, upon appreciating the evidence on record, directed the husband to pay ₹50,000 per month towards maintenance from the date of application.
Aggrieved, the husband approached the High Court, contending that his business had suffered losses, particularly post-COVID-19, and that he was not in a financial position to pay such maintenance.
It was further argued that the wife was educated and capable of maintaining herself, and that the Family Court had ignored material evidence, including income tax returns and financial records.
Court’s Observation
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the evidence on record and the reasoning adopted by the Family Court, particularly in the context of the husband’s plea that his business had suffered losses and that he was financially incapable of paying maintenance. At the outset, the Court noted that the applicant-husband had attempted to project a case of financial distress by relying on selective income tax returns and oral assertions regarding the alleged closure of business activities.
However, on a closer scrutiny of the material, the Court found that such assertions were not supported by cogent documentary evidence. The Court observed that despite claiming closure of business, the applicant had failed to produce any material demonstrating that his commercial activities had actually ceased. On the contrary, documents on record, including financial transactions, complaints regarding recovery of business dues, and evidence relating to investments and loans, indicated continued engagement in business activities and financial capacity.
In this context, the Court emphasised that the mere production of income tax returns cannot be treated as conclusive proof of actual income, particularly in matrimonial disputes where there is a tendency to understate earnings. It noted that “income tax returns do not necessarily furnish an accurate guide of real income… more particularly when the parties are engaged in a matrimonial conflict, and there is a tendency to underestimate the income to avoid the liability.”
The Court further held that the plea of recession or closure of business cannot be accepted in the absence of reliable material. Rejecting such contention, it categorically observed, “alleged recession or close down of the business in the absence of any material is not enough to deny the maintenance.”
Developing this principle further, the Court reiterated the settled legal position that an able-bodied husband cannot evade his obligation to maintain his wife by merely pleading financial incapacity. It held that “an able-bodied husband is presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and cannot contend that he is not in a position to sufficiently maintain his family.”
The Court placed the burden squarely on the husband to demonstrate genuine inability, observing that “the onus is on the husband to establish… that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family and discharge his legal obligation for reason beyond his control.” In the present case, the Court found that the applicant had failed to discharge this burden, having neither disclosed his true income nor substantiated his claims of financial hardship.
The Court also addressed the argument regarding the wife’s educational qualifications and alleged earning capacity. It held that mere capability to earn does not disentitle a wife from maintenance in the absence of evidence of actual income. The Court reiterated that maintenance must be assessed keeping in view the standard of living to which the wife was accustomed and the financial status of the husband.
Significantly, the Court took note of the medical condition of the respondent-wife, observing that she was undergoing treatment for cancer and required continuous financial support. It held that this factor had been rightly considered by the Family Court while determining the quantum of maintenance.
Reaffirming the object of Section 125 CrPC, the Court emphasised that the provision is a piece of beneficial legislation intended to prevent destitution and ensure a dignified life. It was observed that the obligation of the husband is not merely statutory but also moral, and cannot be avoided except on legally sustainable grounds supported by evidence.
The Court further cautioned against adopting a hyper-technical or narrow approach in such proceedings, noting that the Family Court had assessed the evidence holistically, including the husband’s financial conduct, business activities, and overall capacity to earn. It found no perversity or arbitrariness in the conclusions drawn.
Conclusion
In view of the above, the Court concluded that the Family Court had rightly rejected the plea of financial incapacity and had correctly assessed the maintenance amount, considering both the financial status of the husband and the needs of the wife.
The Court held that the Family Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and that no perversity or legal infirmity was made out, warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the criminal revision application was dismissed, and the order directing payment of ₹50,000 per month as maintenance was upheld.
Cause Title: Vasantbhai Premjibhai Vekariya v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
