1. Husband challenged maintenance awarded to wife and children under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 3433
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Pushpendra Yadav, J
Manish Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Mala Sharma – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 829 of 2024 | CRIMINAL REVISION No. 97 of 2024
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Harshvardhan Topre, Brijendra Singh Gaur
For the Respondents: Brijendra Singh Gaur, Harshvardhan Topre
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Harshvardhan Topre, Brijendra Singh Gaur
For the Respondents: Brijendra Singh Gaur, Harshvardhan Topre
In Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings, a husband's failure to disclose income leads to an adverse inference, and a wife's potential or minimal earning is not a bar to maintenance, which must be reasonably balanced between the parties' status and the husband's capacity.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 - Maintenance - Summary nature of proceedings - It is settled in law that proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. are summary in nature and it is not necessary for a Court to ascertain as to who was in wrong or delve into the minute details of matrimonial disputes. (Paras 18, 19)
(B) Maintenance - Capacity to earn - The mere fact that a wife is capable of earning or earns some income does not operate as a bar to being awarded maintenance; the court must determine if the income is sufficient to maintain her according to the lifestyle of her husband. (Paras 22.2)
(C) Husband's Income Disclosure - Adverse Inference - An able-bodied husband is presumed to be capable of earning; if the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income in the prescribed affidavit, an adverse inference may be drawn by the Court. (Paras 24, 25)
(D) Grounds for Separate Living - Impact of Acquittal - While mere pendency of proceedings under Section 498-A IPC might not always be sufficient cause, an acquittal in such criminal cases does not necessarily wash out the testimony of the wife regarding cruelty at her matrimonial home. (Paras 21.1, 21.2)
Facts of the case:
The husband and wife filed cross criminal revisions challenging an order from the Family Court, Gwalior, which granted maintenance of Rs. 20,000 per month to the wife and Rs. 10,000 per month to each of the two minor children. The husband sought to quash the order on the grounds that the wife was qualified and could maintain herself and that he had been acquitted in related criminal cases. The wife sought an enhancement of the maintenance amount, alleging the husband's income from the Merchant Navy was significantly higher than the amount awarded.
Findings of Court:
Total maintenance of Rs. 40,000 per month was found to be reasonable and realistic. The court held that the wife had sufficient cause to live separately and that the husband's failure to disclose his income justified the adverse inference drawn by the Family Court.
Issues: (I) Whether the wife was compelled to reside separately for a sufficient and reasonable cause, (II) Whether the wife and children were unable to maintain themselves, (III) Whether the husband had sufficient means, and (IV) Whether the maintenance amount was too low or too high.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that maintenance should balance the needs of the spouse and children with the husband's paying capacity. It further established that the potential to earn does not deny a wife maintenance and that the husband's failure to provide a transparent income affidavit allows the court to draw an adverse inference regarding his financial capacity.
Result: Both revisions dismissed; impugned order affirmed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- family law
- practice and procedure
- crime and sentencing
Table of Contents
2. Husband argued wife had no sufficient cause to live separately; wife sought enhancement of maintenance. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 )
3. Proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are summary; minute matrimonial details need not be examined. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 )
4. Wife's mere potential to earn or acquittal in dowry case does not disentitle her to maintenance. (Para 21 , 22 , 24 )
5. Both criminal revisions dismissed; maintenance order of Rs. 40,000 per month affirmed. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 )
6. Can a compromise in mediation proceedings bar a wife from claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.?
No, if the circumstances compelling her to live separately continue despite the compromise, she is not disentitled from claiming maintenance. (Para 16 )
7. What is the test for determining the quantum of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.?
The quantum must be reasonable and realistic—neither extravagant nor so meagre as to drive the wife to penury. (Para 27 )
8. What inference can be drawn if a husband does not disclose his exact income in maintenance proceedings?
An adverse inference may be drawn against the husband for non-disclosure of his exact income. (Para 24 , 25 )
ORDER
Heard finally.
2. This order shall dispose of CRR No.829/2024 filed by husband-Manish Sharma and CRR No.97/2024 filed by wife-Mala Sharma.
3. Both the criminal revisions arise from an order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the learned Additional Principle Judge, Family Court, Gwalior in MJCR No.20240/2018. By the said order, an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C filed by the wife was allowed, whereby maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to wife and Rs.10,000/- per month each to two minor children (total Rs.40,000/-) was granted.
4. Criminal Revision No.829/2024 has been filed by husband challenging the award of maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to wife and Rs.10,000/- per month to each minor children, whereas CRR No.97/2024 has been filed by the wife for enhancement of maintenance amount.
5. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present revisions in short are that the respondent/wife had filed an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C alleging that her marriage with petitioner/husband was solemnized on 24.06.2012 in Gwalior as per Hindu rights and custom. Out of said wedlock, respondent no.2 and 3 were born. After marriage, when she went to her matrimonial home, after sometime the husband and his family members began demanding a car in dowry and started harassing her physically and mentally. In the year, 2014, when she was pregnant and the petitioner/husband was on duty, her father-in-law and both brothers-in-law physically assaulted her and drove her out of the house in the same cloths she was wearing. On 18.01.2015, she gave birth to a son at her parental home.
6. Thereafter, when her father tried to explain matters to petitioner and his family, the petitioner began living separately with respondent/wife in Dindayal Nagar, but even there he continued to harass her physically and mentally. It was further mentioned in the application that in May, 2016 she gave birth to a daughter and when the petitioner/husband came on leave, he took her to matrimonial home at Bhagat Singh Nagar. In matrimonial home again in-laws pushed and beat her and said that she would not be allowed to enter the house unless the dowry demand was fulfilled. They also obtained her signature on blank papers. She, thereafter, submitted a written complaint at P.S, Gola Ka Mandir on the basis of which a dowry case was registered against the petitioner and his family members.
7. It was further submitted that after a compromise, she went to live with her husband, but again her in-laws removed all her ornaments and harassed and assaulted her over dowry. In 2018 she was driven out of the house with both the children in the same cloths she was wearing. On the said premise she had filed an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C and further stated that she has no source of income. The petitioner is employed in Merchant Navy service and his monthly income is Rs.2 lakhs per month and, thus, prayed for Rs.1 lakh per month as maintenance for her and two children, from the petitioner/husband.
8. The petitioner filed reply and denied the allegations that he and his family members have never mentally and physically tortured the respondent. It was further contended that neither he nor his family members ever demanded dowry from the respondent. It was further stated that after the marriage, the respondent used to frequently visit her parental home and return in the evening. It was alleged that she used to demand Rs.5000-7000/- every one or two days and upon refusal would threaten to commit self-harm by cutting the veins of her hand. It was further alleged that she forcibly obtained money from his father and used abusive language against him and his family members. It was further pleaded that due to her conduct, he rented accommodation at DD Nagar, Gwalior and, thereafter, at Bhagat Singh Nagar. Since he remained out of station for approximately six months on account of his employment, it was alleged that whenever, he returned, respondent would reside with him for two or three days and there
