Misuse of Section 125 CrPC by Wives Wanting to Remain Idle

- Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court I Judge: Justice Nidhi Gupta

Facts of the Case:

The case involved a woman seeking maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the CrPC, claiming she was unemployed and unable to support herself. The couple had been living separately since 2014 due to marital discord. The woman asserted that she was a villager with no income, while her husband earned ₹12,000 per month working as a mason.

Issues:

• Whether the wife, who is physically capable of working but chooses to remain idle, is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC?

• Whether the petitioner deserted the matrimonial home without sufficient cause?
  

Legal Points Considered:

1. Purpose of Section 125 CrPC:

   The court emphasized that Section 125 CrPC is intended to protect wives from destitution, not to support women who are physically capable of working but choose not to. The law ensures protection for those who are truly unable to maintain themselves, preventing vagrancy.

2. Desertion by Wife:

   The court found that the woman had left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and did not seek custody of her children. The Family Court had previously noted that the wife deserted the home, which led to the dismissal of her plea.

3. No Evidence of Husband's High Income:

   The court pointed out that the woman failed to provide evidence of her husband's alleged ₹12,000 monthly earnings. Instead, it was proven that the husband earned only ₹6,000-7,000 and was supporting both their children and his elderly mother.

4. Wife's Ability to Work:

   The court held that an able-bodied wife cannot misuse Section 125 CrPC to live idly while her husband works and supports the family.

Judgment:

The court upheld the Family Court’s decision to dismiss the wife’s claim for maintenance, citing her ability to work and the fact that she had deserted her husband without sufficient cause.

Points to Know for Legal Practitioners:

1. Misuse of Section 125 CrPC:

   Lawyers should be vigilant in cases where wives misuse maintenance provisions while being physically capable of earning their livelihood.

2. Evidence of Income:

   Both parties must provide clear and convincing evidence of income to support or refute claims for maintenance.

3. Desertion without Cause:

   Claims under Section 125 CrPC will not succeed if the wife is found to have left the matrimonial home without valid reasons.

4. Focus on Financial Responsibility:

   Courts will consider the financial burdens on the husband, including other dependents, before granting maintenance.