‘Educated, capable of earning’: Allahabad HC rejects maintenance plea of wife who left husband without reason

The Allahabad High Court has rejected a wife’s plea for maintenance from her husband, observing that she was well-educated and capable of earning a livelihood. The court upheld the lower court’s decision, which found that the wife had left her matrimonial home voluntarily and had refused to return despite her husband’s efforts to bring her back.

The high court observed that the primary objective of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. However, it noted that the wife’s educational qualifications and ability to earn were relevant to determining whether she was unable to maintain herself.

The couple married according to Hindu rituals on April 16, 2022. After staying at her matrimonial home for a few days, the wife left for her parental home with her uncle on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan. She did not return thereafter.

Subsequently, she filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC, alleging that she had faced cruelty over dowry demands and had been forced to leave her matrimonial home.

She further alleged that her husband had sufficient financial resources but had neglected and refused to maintain her.

Wife says she is unemployed, husband earns ₹1.5 lakh a month

Appearing for the wife, her counsel told the high court that although she was educated, she was unemployed and financially dependent. He also submitted that her husband was a software engineer earning approximately ₹1.5 lakh per month.

The wife’s counsel argued that she had valid reasons to live separately and that her husband had the financial capacity to provide maintenance.

In response, the husband’s counsel submitted that he was unemployed, had no property in his name and was dependent on his parents for his livelihood.

Wife refused to return despite husband’s efforts

The Family Court had recorded findings based on oral and documentary evidence that the husband made bona fide efforts to bring his wife back to the matrimonial home, but she refused to return.

According to the findings, the wife had left for her parental home with her uncle on Raksha Bandhan of her own free will. She subsequently declined to return without sufficient cause.

The lower court concluded that she was living separately without adequate justification. It also took note of her educational qualifications and ability to earn while deciding her maintenance claim.

Why did the wife lose the maintenance case?

Section 125 CrPC provides a legal remedy for maintenance in specified circumstances. The relevant considerations in a maintenance claim include whether the husband has sufficient means, whether the wife is unable to maintain herself and whether she has refused to live with her husband without sufficient reason.

In this case, the Family Court found that the wife had left the matrimonial home voluntarily and had refused to return despite her husband’s efforts. It held that she was living separately without sufficient reason, attracting the bar under Section 125(4) CrPC.

The court also considered her educational qualifications and earning capacity while assessing whether she was unable to maintain herself.

These findings formed the basis for rejecting her maintenance claim.

High court explains limits of revisional jurisdiction

The HC also highlighted the limited scope of its revisional powers under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC.

It observed that a high court exercising revisional jurisdiction does not function as an appellate court and cannot ordinarily reappreciate or reweigh evidence merely because another view may be possible.

Interference is warranted only when the lower court’s findings are manifestly perverse, illegal or affected by a serious jurisdictional error.

High court finds no grounds to interfere

After examining the matter, the Allahabad High Court held that the Family Court had correctly applied Section 125(4) CrPC to the facts of the case.

The HC found no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the lower court’s judgment that would justify its interference. It consequently rejected the wife’s challenge to the decision denying her maintenance.