Section 125 CrPC proceedings cannot become matrimonial trial: Allahabad High Court grants maintenance to wife

Holding that proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)(corresponding to Section 144, BNSS) are meant to prevent destitution and not to adjudicate matrimonial disputes, the Allahabad High Court recently set aside a family court order denying maintenance to a woman and substantially enhanced the maintenance awarded to her two minor children.

The bench of Justice Garima Prashad observed that a family court cannot insist upon strict proof of allegations such as cruelty, dowry demand or a husband's second marriage while deciding a maintenance claim. Court said the inquiry under Section 125 CrPC is limited to determining whether the wife had a reasonable ground to live separately and whether the husband, despite having sufficient means, neglected or refused to maintain her.

"In proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to insist upon strict proof of cruelty as would be necessary in a criminal prosecution or in a contested matrimonial cause. The scope of enquiry is limited. The Court has to see whether the wife has a reasonable ground to live separately and whether the husband, despite having means, has neglected or refused to maintain her. The standard is not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Nor can the Court convert proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. into a trial of each allegation and counter-allegation relating to matrimonial misconduct," court observed. 

Allowing a criminal revision filed by the wife and her two children, the high court awarded the woman Rs.5,000 per month and enhanced the maintenance payable to each child from Rs.3,000 to Rs.4,000 per month. The total maintenance payable by the husband now stands at Rs.13,000 per month from the date of filing of the maintenance application on February 2, 2021.

Can a wife be denied maintenance for failing to prove cruelty or second marriage?

The high court answered the question in the negative.

It found that the family court had wrongly rejected the wife's claim after concluding that she could not prove specific incidents of cruelty, dowry demand, assault or the husband's alleged second marriage.

"The scope of enquiry is limited. The Court has to see whether the wife has a reasonable ground to live separately and whether the husband, despite having means, has neglected or refused to maintain her," the high court observed.

It added that the standard of proof in maintenance proceedings "is not proof beyond reasonable doubt" and that such proceedings cannot be converted into "a trial of each allegation and counter-allegation relating to matrimonial misconduct".

The Court noted that the husband had admittedly filed divorce proceedings against the wife and had even obtained an ex parte divorce decree, which was later set aside. The parties had been living separately, and the husband himself admitted during cross-examination that he had not paid any maintenance to the wife and children after November 2020.

According to the court, these admitted facts were sufficient to establish that the wife was not living separately without cause.

When does non-payment amount to neglect under Section 125 CrPC?

Court held that neglect can be inferred from the husband's conduct.

It pointed out that the husband had admitted he stopped paying maintenance after his retirement from the Army in November 2020. This admission, court said, was by itself enough to establish neglect under Section 125 CrPC.

The high court also disagreed with the family court's reliance on the fact that maintenance had earlier been deducted from the husband's Army salary. It observed that the deduction actually supported the wife's case because it showed that the wife and children were dependent on maintenance. The husband's legal obligation did not end merely because he retired and salary deductions stopped.

Court further rejected the husband's allegations that the wife was living in adultery. It observed that no independent witness or reliable material had been produced to prove the allegation and that mere suspicion or character assassination cannot deprive a wife of maintenance. Likewise, the wife's inability to prove the husband's alleged second marriage could not be treated as proof that she had no reason to live separately.

How should courts determine maintenance?

The high court found that the family court had also erred in assessing the financial position of the parties.

While the husband admitted that he was receiving a pension of around Rs.21,000 per month after retiring from the Army, he denied having any agricultural or dairy income. The high court observed that he failed to produce complete details regarding agricultural holdings or other sources of livelihood despite being in possession of the best evidence. In such circumstances, court said, an adverse inference could legitimately be drawn.

Court further observed that an able-bodied husband cannot escape his statutory obligation to maintain his wife and children merely by minimizing or suppressing his income.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021), court reiterated that maintenance must be realistic and should enable the claimant to live with dignity. It found the earlier award of Rs.3,000 per month to each child "wholly inadequate", observing that school-going children require support for food, clothing, education, transport and medical expenses.

Accordingly, the high court enhanced the maintenance to Rs.5,000 per month for the wife and Rs.4,000 per month each for the two children. It directed that arrears from February 2, 2021 be calculated after adjusting amounts already paid and cleared in 12 equal monthly instalments along with the monthly maintenance. It also permitted the wife to seek recovery of the maintenance amount from the husband's pension and other lawful receivables if he defaults in making payment.

Case Title: Smt. Reenu and 2 Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Judgment Date: June 17, 2026

Bench: Justice Garima Prashad