Legal Questions

Dear Client,
Both under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or under Section 125 Cr. PC(Section 144 of BNSS), any person having sufficient means is liable to support his wife and children, provided she is unable to maintain herself and the children. This support is provided by way of a fixed amount determined by a judicial magistrate, known as ‘maintenance’ once an application is filed by the aggrieved spouse seeking maintenance from her husband. Certain guidelines had been set down by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Rajnesh versus Neha (2020). Said criteria include the parties’ status, the applicant’s (in this case the wife’s) needs, and the respondent’s income and property, the claimant’s liabilities and financial responsibilities, the parties’ age and employment status, the parties’ residential arrangements, the parties’ minor children’s maintenance, and illness or disability. The Gauhati High Court has recently observed that if the husband is healthy, able-bodied and in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife and children. A bench of Justice Malsari Nandi added that the husband's plea that he does not have the means to pay because he does not have a suitable job or business is a “bald” excuse that is not acceptable. Maintenance under Section 125 of Cr. PC is not restricted to the husband's income alone. The courts have held that the husband's income, as well as his assets and properties, can be taken into consideration while determining the maintenance amount. The courts have also held that maintenance can be granted to the wife even if she is living separately from her husband due to his ill-treatment or other reasons. To enforce maintenance orders court can issue various orders, including attachment of the salary or property of the husband, Non-compliance can also lead to imprisonment, as per Section 125(3) of Cr. PC. As per Section 125(4) Cr. P.c, no wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of the proceeding, as the case may be, from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. The Karnataka High Court in the case of Haunsabai vs. Balkrishna Krishna Badigar (1980) denied maintenance to a wife who deserted her husband without sufficient reason, emphasizing that desertion without cause disqualifies her from receiving maintenance. The Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Smt. Archana Gupta & ors vs. Rajeev Gupta (2009) denied maintenance to a wife living separately without sufficient cause, underlining the requirement for valid reasons to claim maintenance. The Delhi High Court also ruled that Wife's Right To Maintenance Forfeited U/S 125(4) CrPC Only When Acts Of Adultery Are Committed Repeatedly.