It is most crucial to note that in a significant move with far reaching implications, the Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled X vs Y & Ors in Criminal Revision No. 301 of 2020 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2024:MPHC-IND:29527 that was reserved on 10.9.2024 and then was finally pronounced on 15.10.2024 underscored in no uncertain terms that Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is not meant to create an “army of idle people waiting for maintenance”. To put it differently, the Indore Bench made it indubitably clear that the maintenance provisions under Section 125 of the CrPC were not intended to create a “dependent class” of individuals awaiting financial support from their spouses. It must be noted that the petitioner in this leading case argued that his wife who holds an M.Com. degree is capable of self support as she had previously worked in the film industry and presently is operating a dance class. The Bench in its judgment reduced the maintenance amount from Rs 25,000/- to Rs 20,000/- per month. Very rightly so!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench of Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court comprising of Hon’ble Shri Justice Prem Narayan Singh sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act being aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.12.2019, passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District-Indore, in MJCR No.1009/2014, whereby the learned Principal Judge has partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C by awarding total maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per months ( i.e. Rs. 25,000/- per month in favour of the respondent No.1/wife & Rs.15,000/- in favour of respondent No. 2/daughter).”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 that, “
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent is a working lady and capable to maintain herself. She has a career in modeling and she had also acted in some movies as well as serials and is presently running a dance class. She is well qualified and is having M.Com. degree. She herself went to her matrimonial home. Petitioner is ready to keep the respondent and at the time of her delivery the petitioner has transferred Rs. 50,000/- in the respondent father’s account. She has not filed any report for cruelty, physical or mental assault. For the payment of maintenance amount, the petitioner has taken loan from the bank. The petitioner is an employee in a private bank. His father and brother are depending on him. The maintenance amount awarded by the learned Family Court is causing extreme financial hardships on the applicant. The learned Family Court without appreciating the evidence, wrongly awarded the maintenance of Rs.25000/- in favour of respondent No. 1/wife hence, it may be reduced to the extent of Rs. 10,000/-. Further, in support of her contentions counsel placed reliance in the judgment passed by Delhi High Court in the case of Rupali Gupta Vs. Rajat Gupta, delivered on 5.09.2016, Smt. Archana Gupta and Another Vs. Shri Rajeev Gupta and Another, passed on 18.11.2009, passed by Uttarakhand High Court. and also on a judgement passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. E. Shanthi Vs. Dr. H.K. Vasudev AIR 2005 Karnataka 417.
”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 6 that, “On the contrary, the petitioner Amit Goyal asserted in his court statement that his wife/respondent concentrate only on economic issues and creates disputes in this regard. She was trying to get returned to her home. Further, he has stated that the respondent herself able to maintain her and when she voluntarily doesn’t want to live with him, she is not entitled for any maintenance. However, on the issue of respondent’s allegations, petitioner has not stated anything in rebuttal. He has not narrated anything regarding his wish of son and allegations of misbehaviour.”
Do also note, the Bench notes in para 7 that, “In view of the aforesaid contentions and appreciation of facts, the respondent is liable to get maintenance from her husband. In so far as the contentions of learned counsel of petitioner regarding qualifications of respondent is concerned, certainly the respondent is well qualified. She is having M.Com. and Arts degree. However, only on that basis, she cannot be deprived for her entitlement of getting maintenance. On this aspect, the laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in para 10 of the case of Sunita Kachwaha and Ors.Vs. Anil Kachwaha, reported as AIR 2015 SC 554 is worth referring here:
“
10.The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant-wife is well qualified, having post graduate degree in Geography and working as a teacher in Jabalpur and also working in Health Department. Therefore, she has income of her own and needs no financial support from respondent. In our considered view, merely because the appellant-wife is a qualified post graduate, it would not be sufficient to hold that she is in a position to maintain herself.
”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 8 that, “As such in view of the aforesaid proposition, only on the basis of M.Com. and Arts Degree the wife cannot be eschewed from getting maintenance from her husband. A husband cannot renounce his wife, who is not an employed woman. Nevertheless, an educated lady can earns income for her own livelihood, even though she requisites financial support from her husband to some extent. Accordingly, the respondents are entitled to get maintenance from the petitioner.”
It would be worthwhile to mention that the Bench points out in para 9 that, “So far as the quantum of maintenance for the wife is concerned, it is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent/wife is a working lady. She is working in film making and has worked in movies and she is used to live glamorous life.”
While taking a balanced stand and citing a recent and relevant case law, the Bench enunciates in para 10 that, “At this juncture, the following excerpts of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Ors.[(2021) 2 SCC 324] is reproduced below:-
The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meager that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort.”
Most significantly and so also most forthrightly, the Bench encapsulates in para 11 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating that, “Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and settled position of law, the learned Family Court has not committed any error while considering the socio-economic standard of wife as per the standard of her husband. Nevertheless, Section 125 of Cr.P.C has not been constituted to create an army of idle or inactive people waiting for maintenance to be awarded from the income of the other spouse. It is nowhere manifested that able and well qualified lady has to be always dependent upon her spouse for her maintenance.”
It cannot be ever glossed over that the Bench points out in para 12 that, “In the case at hand, the wife used to be an actress in profession. She has also admitted in cross-examination that she has worked in two movies namely Morsan Chal Mitwa and Chhatisgarh Mahtari. It is also established as admitted fact that she is also well qualified lady. As per evidence available on record, it can be assumed that respondent No. 1/wife can earn some income for her livelihood even after being supported from her husband.”
As a corollary and quite significantly, the Bench then directs in para 13 stating that, “In view of above, it appears that the wife is entitled for getting maintenance amount but looking to her qualification and her abilities for earning money, the maintenance amount of Rs.25,000/- per month in favour of wife appears to be on higher side. Accordingly, this petition stands partly allowed with a direction that the maintenance amount awarded in favour of respondent No.1/wife by the Family Court is reduced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month. So far as the maintenance awarded to the respondent No. 2/daughter is concerned, the same shall be maintained till the age of majority.”
Adding more to it, the Bench then directs in para 14 that, “Remaining part of the order of family Court shall remain intact.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 15 that, “With the aforesaid, present petition stands disposed of.”
In a nutshell, we thus see that the Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has made it manifestly clear in this notable judgment that a well-qualified wife should not remain idle just to live on maintenance from her husband. It thus merits no reiteration that all women who are well-qualified in our nation must definitely spare a food of thought for what Hon’ble Shri Justice Prem Narayan Singh has ruled so very elegantly, eloquently and effectively in this leading case and realize the bottom-line of the permanent utility of this most commendable judgment that has been laid bare as discussed hereinabove! No doubt, the earlier they do it, the better it shall be for them to become self-reliant which shall be in their own long term interests and so also for their family which includes the husband! No denying!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.
