Facts
The Saurabh Srivastava (Revisionist) married to opposite party no.2 on 14.12.2014 according to Hindu rites and rituals at Lucknow.
Out the wedlock the minor son of revisionist and opposite part No.2 son born in November 2021.
The couple separated due to matrimonial discord in February 2023.
The revisionist is a software engineer earning Approx. ₹ 175000 per month. Opposite party No.2 is also a software engineer at TCS earning Approx. ₹ 73000 per month.
Opposite part No.2 also purchased a flat of worth ₹ 80.43,409 in 2023.
The Family court of Lucknow order dated 18.03.2024 directed to husband (Revisionist) to pay:
- ₹ 15,000 to wife (Opposite party No.2)
- ₹ 25,000 to Minor son (Opposite Party No.3)
Issues
Whether the family court was justifying in awarding Rupees 15,000 per month as maintained to the wife despite being her employed and earning a substantial income.
Legal Provisions involved
Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): order of maintenance of wife, children and parents. The Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 125, addresses the maintenance of spouses, parents, and children. According to this provision, a person with adequate resources is legally required to support his wife, kids, and parents unable to support themselves. The section authorizes the Judiciary to determine the amount of maintenance depending on the requirements of the appellant and the monetary capability of the individual obligated to pay. Section 125 is an important provision that provides legal recourse to women, kids, and parents who are not financially sound and are denied support by the concerned person. Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) has been re-enacted as Section 144 in the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
Arguments
Revisionist (Husband)
- Wife is financially independent, she is earning ₹ 73,000/Month and she has also purchased a flat which worth is over 80 Lakhs.
- Therefore, granting her ₹ 15,000 as maintenance is unjustified and not valid.
- Agrees to pay ₹ 25,000 for maintenance of his minor Child.
Opposite party
- Mere earning by the wife does not bar her from claiming the maintenance from his husband (Rajnesh v. Neha & Ors).
- Lifestyle and needs of wife in accordance with husbands’ higher income must be considered.
Analysis
The Courts analysed that t if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. The courts have provided guidance on this issue in the following judgments:
- In Sailja v. Khobbanna (2018) 12 SCC 199 The Court held that merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The court has to determine whether the income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home.
- Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715: (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 753: (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 589] in this case The Supreme Court repelled this contention, and held that merely because the wife was earning some income, it could not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance.
- Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 694 in this case the Court held that neither the mere potential to earn, nor the actual earning of the wife, howsoever meagre, is sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance.
- The Court analysed the Wife income of ₹ 73,000 and flat worth ₹80 lakhs shows the sufficient and financial stability.
- The court denied for granting ₹15,000 for her wife maintenance.
- However the minor son of husband requires proper support so, the Court allowed ₹25,000/Month maintenance from his monthly income.
Judgement
- The instant revision is partly allowed by the Court.
- Modified the order of family Court: that the revisionist is entitled to pay ₹25,000/Month for the maintenance of his minor child and not entitled to pay ₹15,000/Month to his wife because opposite patty No.2 income shows sufficient and financial stability.
Conclusion
The high court balanced the rights and obligations under Section 125 of CrPC. Th Court recognised the wife’s financial independence and stability set aside the maintenance order but upheld the child’s right to adequate support from his father. Thus, the child will receive ₹25,000/Month from the revisionist as maintenance of child under section 125 of CrPc.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY Manisha Kunwar
For reading more please refer: Saurabh Srivastava vs State Of U.P.
