CASE NAME: A v. B
CASE NUMBER: CRA No. 183 of 2024
COURT: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench
DATE: 10 April 2026
QUORUM: Hon’ble Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke
FACTS
The marriage between the parties was celebrated on 16 April 2012. After the marriage the wife (B) then returned to live at the husband’s (A’s) house. A’s family harassed her from the first day of living in her home for the alleged lack of dowry she brought, says B. The harassment was not just in the physical but also the mental. On 4 June 2014, A assaulted B using a belt fastened around his waist, and then notified the police of the assault. She was taken by the police to the Women’s Cell. Though B and her family tried to settle the matter several times, no reply was received from A and his family. B was therefore forced to vacate her matrimonial home and reside at her parent’s home. B argued that A was working as ‘Gangman’ in the Railway Department on a monthly salary. His parents were responsible for paying her a maintenance allowance of 25,000/-, which he had denied and neglected to do. B has not been able to maintain herself and hence, presented a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before the Family Court at Nagpur for maintenance.
When the evidence of both parties was recorded and appreciated by the Family Court, it found that A had refused and neglected to maintain B and gave him the relief of maintenance at Rs. 5,000/- per month from 14 January 2017 to 31 December 2020, Rs. 6,000/- per month from 1 January 2021 to 31 August 2024, and Rs. 7,000/- per month from 1 September 2024 onwards. A took an uproar at this order and took the present Criminal Revision Application before High Court.
ISSUES
- Whether the evidence of refusal or neglect on the part of A was sufficient to put him under the provisions of Section 125 CrPC.
- Whether B’s act of leaving the matrimonial home and filing a divorce petition withdrew her claim under section 125 CrPC for maintenance.
- Whether the amount of maintenance awarded by the Family Court was fair and reasonable given the facts and circumstances of the case.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Under Section 125 CrPC
- Section 125(4) CrPC
- Section 125(3) Second Proviso CrPC
- Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Ors., (2021) 2 SCC 324
ARGUMENTS
APPELLANT (A – Husband):
A’s counsel argued that B has voluntarily abandoned the matrimonial home for an inadequate or reasonable cause and thus has no excuse for having done so. It was relied on that B left the matrimonial home on 4 June 2014 (this was described as elopement by counsel). It was also contended that B’s divorce petition, which was later on confirmed ex parte, was proof of her failure to live with the other party and fulfil her marital responsibilities. It was therefore suggested that there was no refusal or neglect on the part of A and the revision should be allowed.
RESPONDENT (B – Wife):
The counsel for B defended the order of the Family Court and made a representation that A has not raised any challenge to the decree of divorce issued against him in any proceedings. B’s evidence was such that it showed that she had been physically assaulted by A on 4 June 2014 and then she had no alternative but to depart. The visit to the police station and referral to the Women’s Cell are supporting factors. Although B tried to reconcile with A and his family, A would not respond, proving his refusal and neglect. A produced no evidence on behalf of B that it had the ability to sustain itself.
ANALYSIS
The Court was satisfied that B’s evidence on the issue of dowry harassment and the physical assault on 4 June 2014 was not contradicted by the cross-examination which was conducted almost exclusively on the petition for divorce and was not designed to impeach her basic evidence. As to the legal framework, the Court made the distinction between ‘refusal’ (to refuse to maintain after demand) and ‘neglect’ (to fail to maintain without demand), which may both be inferred from conduct. Physical assault and ill-treatment in the matrimonial home were considered as sufficient cause for B to leave, and A’s refusal to respond to the divorce petition and lack of interest in B’s welfare were considered proof of neglect. The claim that B’s divorce disentitled her to maintenance was rejected – A was served, but failed to respond and the ex parte decree was never appealed. A’s financial strength (Rs.) His undisputed monthly income was 25,000/- (as a Railway Gangman) and there was no evidence in production to show that B had any other independent income. The Court, applying the Rajnesh v. Neha principles on quantum, found that the graduated maintenance amounts are just and proportionate.
JUDGEMENT
The High Court rejected the A’s Criminal Revision Application, which it deemed to be without merit. The Court upheld the order passed by the Family Court at Nagpur which had granted maintenance to B at the rates set out: Rs. 5,000/- per month from 14 January 2017 to 31 December 2020, Rs. 6,000/- per month from 1 January 2021 to 31 August 2024, and Rs. 7,000/- per month from 1 September 2024 onwards. The Court ordered A to pay all the arrears within 1 month from the date of the order.
CONCLUSION
This judgment states that the mandate to protect in Section 125 CrPC is a summary social welfare measure that aims at preventing destitution and vagrancy among dependents in the family circle. The ruling lays out some key principles. First, physical assault and harassment in a matrimonial home is sufficient cause for a wife to leave, and does not negate her right to receive maintenance. Second, if a husband fails to respond to a divorce petition or to show any interest in the wellbeing of his estranged wife, then he is presumed to have neglected her under Section 125. Third, it is not sufficient for a wife to file a divorce petition for the spouses to be taken to mean that they have refused to perform their marital obligations or have lost their right to maintenance. Last but not least, the Rajnesh approach in determining maintenance quantum provides for a holistic approach rather than an arbitrary one.The judgment is a reminder to revisional courts that they should be cautious about disturbing the findings of fact recorded by Family Courts if the same have been recorded on an appreciation of evidence. The revision was justifiably rejected.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY : ARNAV NAIK
Read the judgement copy below:
