Maintenance must ensure a standard of living consistent with dignity. Where financial data is suppressed, courts must estimate income based on professional capacity. Obligations to subsequent families do not negate or reduce the primary statutory duty to maintain a spouse and minor children.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 - Maintenance of wives and children - Objective of the provision is to prevent destitution and ensure dignified sustenance - Assessment of quantum must reflect actual earning capacity and reasonable needs - Sustenance does not contemplate bare survival but a standard of living consistent with dignity - (Paras 3.4, 7, 18).

(B) Indian Evidence Act - Sections 106 and 114(g) - Onus of proof regarding earning capacity lies upon the earning spouse - Adverse inference is warranted where financial disclosure is evasive and relevant records are withheld - Courts are not bound by self-serving claims of unemployment when work history and professional qualifications suggest otherwise - (Paras 10, 11, 12, 17).

(C) Maintenance - Subsequent marriage and additional liabilities - Financial obligations arising from a subsequent marriage or secondary familial responsibilities cannot take precedence over or dilute the statutory obligation to support the primary spouse and minor children - (Paras 3.8, 15).

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought an enhancement of maintenance awarded by the trial court, asserting that the quantum was inadequate and failed to reflect the true earning capacity of the respondent. The respondent contended that his financial capacity was limited and burdened by subsequent marital obligations and other dependents. The trial court had performed a notional assessment for a skilled worker after concluding the respondent failed to provide a candid financial disclosure.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the existing maintenance provided for bare survival rather than dignified sustenance. It held that the deliberate suppression of financial records by the respondent justified an adverse inference. It further reaffirmed that subsequent marital commitments do not absolve a party of the primary statutory duty to maintain the first family.

Issues: The main issues were whether the granted maintenance was sufficient to ensure dignified living, whether the concealment of earnings warranted an income estimation by the court, and whether subsequent familial responsibilities could restrict or reduce the maintenance payable to the first family.

Ratio Decidendi: Maintenance must be sufficient to enable a claimant to live with dignity. When a party intentionally obscures their income, the court may make a realistic estimation based on qualifications and professional history. Secondary family obligations are not a valid defense to minimize the fundamental statutory right of dependents to secure appropriate maintenance.

Result: Revision petition is allowed and maintenance is enhanced accordingly.

JUDGMENT

SANJEEV NARULA, J.:

1. This revision petition assails final judgment dated 23rd November, 2021, passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,, (“Cr.P.C.”) whereby maintenance has been awarded in favour of the Petitioners. The challenge is confined to the quantum so awarded, and the Petitioners seek enhancement.

2. The facts leading to the present petition are as follows:

2.1 Petitioner No. 1 is the wife of the Respondent. The marriage was solemnised on 26th April, 2015 as per Muslim rites. Petitioner No. 2 is their minor daughter, born on 17th January, 2016, who is presently in the custody of Petitioner No. 1.

2.2 It is alleged that soon after the marriage, Petitioner No. 1 was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of dowry demands, despite her family having incurred substantial wedding expenses and paid Rs. 4 lakhs in cash towards purchase of a car. Further demands, including Rs. 3 lakhs and an I-10 car, are alleged, leading to matrimonial discord.

2.3 Incidents of verbal and physical abuse are alleged to have occurred during cohabitation in 2015, following which Petitioner No. 1 approached the CAW Cell. On assurances extended by the Respondent, she resumed cohabitation on 16th September, 2015. She alleges that she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home with the infant on 28th February, 2016, and has been residing separately since then. Petitioner No. 1 lodged a further complaint before the CAW Cell on 16th July, 2016.

2.4 In December, 2016, Petitioner No. 1 instituted proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance for herself and the minor child. During pendency, interim maintenance of Rs. 4,800/- per month was directed.

2.5 Evidence was adduced by both parties. The Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, returned findings that Petitioner No. 1 had sufficient cause to reside separately and has no independent source of income.

2.6 On the question of means, the Trial Court held that the Respondent had neither made a candid disclosure of his earnings nor proved the income claimed by him. It was noted that the Respondent contracted a second marriage in March, 2018 and has a child from the said marriage. Proceeding on a reasonable estimation and treating the Respondent as a skilled worker, the Trial Court assessed his income at Rs. 19,473/- per month.

2.7 The Trial Court consequently awarded maintenance of Rs. 4,800/- per month from the date of institution of the petition till December, 2021. With effect from January, 2022, the amount was enhanced to Rs. 6,000/- per month, apportioned as Rs. 3,500/- per month to Petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 2,500/- per month to Petitioner No. 2. Litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/- were also directed to be paid.

3. The Petitioners seek enhancement of the maintenance on the following grounds:

3.1. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Petitioner No. 2, the minor daughter, is in the care and custody of Petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 is a homemaker with no independent source of income or assets. The Petitioners are residing with and financially dependent on the parents of Petitioner No. 1.

3.2 The Respondent, on the other hand, has sufficient means and earning capacity. He is employed as a Service Engineer with Samsung and earns more than Rs. 30,000/- per month. He also has interests in immovable property, including a house at Samta Vihar, Mukundpur, Delhi. On this premise, it is urged that the Respondent has neglected and refused to maintain the Petitioners and the maintenance awarded does not reflect his true earning capacity.

3.3 The challenge is confined to the question of quantum as the maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month is inadequate to secure dignified sustenance for a non-earning wife and a minor child, particularly when the Trial Court itself assessed the Respondent’s earning capacity as that of a skilled worker and quantified his income at Rs. 19,473/- per month.

3.4 Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 76

Maintenance must ensure a standard of living consistent with dignity. Where financial data is suppressed, courts must estimate income based on professional capacity. Obligations to subsequent families do not negate or reduce the primary statutory duty to maintain a spouse and minor children.

Cases Referred (7)