Acquittal In Cruelty Case No Bar To Maintenance: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reiterated that maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are a measure of social justice meant to prevent destitution, holding that acquittal of a husband in a cruelty case does not disentitle a wife and child from claiming maintenance.

Deciding a batch of criminal revisions arising from a family court order in Indore, Justice Gajendra Singh enhanced maintenance for a minor child while affirming the wife’s entitlement, emphasising that the law prioritises survival and dignity over technical defences.

The dispute arose from an order of the Family Court granting ₹7,000 per month to the wife and ₹3,000 to the minor son. While the wife and child sought enhancement to ₹75,000 per month, the husband challenged the grant itself and also pressed for perjury proceedings against the wife. The High Court, after examining the record, partly allowed the wife’s revision and dismissed the husband’s challenges.

At the heart of the ruling is the Court’s clear articulation of the nature of maintenance proceedings. It observed that Section 125 is “a measure of social justice” intended to provide a “speedy remedy against starvation” and is not punitive in character. Quoting settled law, the Court underlined that such proceedings are “essentially civil in nature” and aimed at ensuring that “no wife, child or parent is left beggared and destitute on the scrap-heap of society.”

Rejecting the husband’s argument that his acquittal in a Section 498-A IPC case should defeat the maintenance claim, the Court held that “acquittal… in itself is not a ground to deny the maintenance to the wife or minor children.” It clarified that the only relevant considerations are whether the claimants are unable to maintain themselves and whether the husband has sufficient means but neglects or refuses to maintain them.

On facts, the Court upheld the finding that the wife was justified in living separately within the matrimonial home due to alleged cruelty. It noted that the husband was earning a monthly salary of approximately ₹65,790 and was therefore “legally and morally bound to maintain the wife and minor son.”

Addressing the husband’s contention that the wife was a qualified advocate capable of earning, the Court found no evidence of actual independent income. It observed that mere enrollment with the Bar Council does not establish financial independence sufficient to deny maintenance. Similarly, the argument that the wife had a share in her parental property was rejected, as there was no proof of actual receipt or income from such assets.

The Court also took a pragmatic view of caregiving responsibilities, stating that raising a child is a “full time job in itself,” implicitly recognising unpaid domestic labour. It enhanced the child’s maintenance from ₹3,000 to ₹9,000 per month, noting that “the needs of a growing child cannot be ignored, especially in a city like Indore where educational expenses are comparatively high.”

Importantly, the Court corrected the commencement date of maintenance, holding that it should run from the date of application rather than the date of order, in line with Supreme Court precedent. The total maintenance was thus fixed at ₹16,000 per month: ₹7,000 for the wife and ₹9,000 for the child, payable from the date of filing of the application.

On the husband’s plea to initiate perjury proceedings under Section 340 CrPC, the Court declined to interfere, observing that such action is warranted only when it is “expedient in the interest of justice.” It found that the alleged discrepancies in the wife’s statements did not cause substantial prejudice or affect the administration of justice.

Case Title: “H” v. “W” & “S” and connected matters

Date of Order: April 17, 2026

Bench: Justice Gajendra Singh