Section 125 CrPC: Husband Cannot Avoid Maintenance Claiming No Job Or Poor Business, Says Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court recently held that where a husband has sufficient means but neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, a maintenance order under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) [corresponding to Section 144(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)] can be passed.

A husband's claim that he does not have a job or that his business is not doing well, the high court said, are “only bald excuses” and have no acceptability in law.

Section 125 CrPC meant to ensure wife can live with dignity

The bench of Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay said that a wife who is unable to support herself cannot be left without financial assistance merely because the husband claims that he has no permanent source of income.

Court said the “inherent and fundamental principle” behind Section 125 CrPC is to improve the financial condition of a woman as well as address the “mental agony and anguish” she suffers when compelled to leave her matrimonial home.

When the woman leaves the matrimonial home, the situation is quite different. She is deprived of many a comfort. Sometimes the faith in life reduces. Sometimes, she feels she has lost the tenderest friend. There may be a feeling that her fearless courage has brought her the misfortune. At this stage, the only comfort that the law can impose is that the husband is bound to give monetary comfort. That is the only soothing legal balm, for she cannot be allowed to resign to destiny," Justice Upadhyay observed.

“A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace,” court said, adding that she is entitled to live in a manner similar to how she would have lived in her husband's home.

Court said maintenance must be adequate enough for a wife to live with dignity. “She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar,” it observed.

Case in brief

Court was dealing with a criminal revision petition filed by one Mohammad Kamil against a January 25, 2023 order of the Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalay, Patiyali, Kasganj. The court below had directed Kamil to pay Rs 3,500 per month to his wife as maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

Kamil's argument was that his wife was living with her parents away from the matrimonial home of her own free will and without any justification. He claimed that he had no permanent source of income and was not in a position to pay Rs 3,500 every month. He alleged that the court below had wrongly assessed his income and had also erred in granting maintenance from the date on which the application was filed.

The high court, however, rejected these arguments. Court noted that it had been recorded by the trial court that the wife had levelled allegations of dowry demand against the husband and that there was sufficient material to prove that she was a simple housewife and did not have any independent earnings.

"Therefore, it is incumbent upon the revisionist (the husband) to provide financial succor to the opposite party no. 2 (the wife), the court held.

Regarding the quantum of the maintenance, the high court opined that the family court itself had provided a very meager amount, i.e. Rs. 3,500. "Had opposite party no. 2 been living with revisionist, he would have had to spend at least this much amount on her," court said. It, therefore, opined that the amount was just.

Accordingly, court dismissed the criminal revision, finding it "devoid of merits".

Case title: Mohammad Kamil v. State of U.P. and Another

Bench: Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay

Order date: September 30, 2026