Can a Working Woman Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC? Allahabad HC Explains

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that a woman who is financially independent and capable of supporting herself cannot seek maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, setting aside a Family Court order that had directed a woman's husband to pay Rs. 5,000 per month.

The bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh held that the woman who was earning Rs. 36,000 a month, with no dependents and no demonstrated financial hardship, did not fall within the statutory category of a wife “unable to maintain herself,” which is a mandatory condition for claiming maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

Court noted that the woman was a postgraduate, professionally qualified, and working as a Senior Sales Coordinator, and therefore fully able to meet her own expenses.

The bench also placed significant emphasis on the wife’s misrepresentation of her employment status before the Family Court. In her affidavit, she did not disclose that she was employed, and in her Section 125 application, she described herself as “illiterate and unemployed".

However, during cross-examination, she admitted that she earned Rs. 36,000 a month when confronted with documents filed by the husband. Court said this disclosure established that she had not approached the trial court with clean hands.

Observing that the judicial process cannot be used on the basis of suppressed or distorted facts, the High Court reiterated that every litigant is bound to make “full and true disclosure of facts".

It further recorded that a person seeking relief from the court must approach it with “clean hands, clean mind, clean heart and clean objective,” and suppression of material facts, especially regarding income, bars a party from claiming maintenance.

"Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions," court said. 

Court also noted that the Family Court had overlooked the husband’s obligation to maintain his aged parents while granting maintenance, even though the wife had no such liabilities. It held that the trial court’s attempt to “balance the status” of the parties was legally impermissible in the face of clear evidence that the wife was financially self-sufficient.

Calling suppression of income a serious misuse of the judicial process, the High Court observed that courts cannot be made instruments for unjust enrichment.

Setting aside the impugned order dated 17 February 2024, the bench allowed the husband’s criminal revision and held that the wife was not entitled to any maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

Case Title: Ankit Saha vs. State of UP and Another

Order Date: December 3, 2025

Bench: Justice Madan Pal Singh