Lifestyle And Status To Be Considered In Petitions Under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Says Delhi HC

Observing that it was the sacrosanct duty of the husband to render financial support to his wife and there was no escape route unless there was an order from the Court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds, the Delhi High Court, on July 18, declined to allow the plea of the revisionist husband.

A criminal revision petition was filed by the husband before the Delhi High Court against an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the Family Court granting maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month to his wife. 

The wife stated in her petition before the Family Court that soon after their marriage in 2015, the couple started living separately on account of family disputes. She averred that she suffered mental agony at the hands of her husband which was the reason for her leaving her matrimonial house. 

To elaborate the paying capacity of her husband, the wife stated that her husband was a graphic designer and earned Rs. 40,000 per month. Apart from this, according to the wife, the man also had rental income of around Rs. 40,000. He was a single child and lived with his mother, who additionally had an income of Rs. 25,000 per month, contended the wife before the Family Court.

The husband alleged that in fact he was the victim of mental cruelty. The wife left the matrimonial house without any justification, therefore she was not entitled to any maintenance, contended the husband. 

The Family Court after examining the contentions on both sides, ordered Rs. 10,000 monthly maintenance to be paid by the husband to the wife.

In the challenge before the Delhi High Court, the counsels for the husband, advocates Saurabh Kansal and Pallavi Sharma, contended that there was no material to indicate actual income of the husband. 

The counsel for the wife, advocate Sunita Arora, argued that there were severe inconsistencies in the husband's averments and cross-examination with respect to his income. 

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, while upholding the order of the Family Court, observed that, "Bald submission that the petitioner does not have any source of income is no ground to exonerate him from the liability of maintaining his wife under the facts of the present case. Even experience shows that actual income is normally not disclosed by the parties. Under such circumstances, it is always safe to come to a realistic conclusion considering the status of the parties and their lifestyle etc."

The Court further, in its parting paragraph, noted that there was evidence on record which suggested that the wife was subjected to harassment on a day to day basis.