A husband cannot be compelled to pay maintenance if his incapacity to earn results from actions by his wife or her family, emphasizing the contextual nature of maintenance obligations.

JUDGMENT :

LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Gaurav Suryavanshi, learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.

2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist challenging the validity of the impugned order dated 07.05.2025 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Case No. 600 of 2019, Vineeta v. Dr. Ved Prakash Singh , whereby the Trial Court rejected the revisionist's application seeking interim maintenance .

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, and has been passed without due application of mind. It is further contended that the Trial Court, while passing the impugned order, has committed material irregularity.

4. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the decision of the Trial Court is based on the fact that the opposite party became incapable of earning his livelihood due to a firing incident in which an attempt to kill him was made by the real brother of the revisionist and his associates.

5. It is pertinent to note that the revisionist had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the opposite party, claiming to be his legally wedded wife.

6. Section 125(1) of the Cr.P.C. provides as under:

"125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.

(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain -

(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or

(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or

(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or

(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate [* * *] [The words "not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole" omitted by Act 50 of 2001, w.e.f. 24.9.2001.], as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct :

Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means.

[Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct.

Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person.] [Inserted by Act 50 of 2001, Section 2 (w.e.f. 24-9-2001).]

Explanation. - For the purposes of this Chapter, -

(a)"minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875) is deemed not to have attained his majority,

(b) "wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not re-married."

7. Ju