Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is denied if the wife has sufficient independent means.

ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed raising challenge to the order dated 08.07.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kurukshetra, Camp Court at Shahabad, District Kurukshetra, Haryana, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the learned Trial Court has fell in error in dismissing the application and has wrongly observed that the petitioner had concealed the factum of her employment. Learned counsel further submits that although the petitioner is earning some amount, however, the same is not sufficient for her maintenance. Moreover, she is currently residing with her father and is totally dependent upon him.

3. It is further contended that, in fact, the respondent is playing hide and seek and is trying to show himself merely an employee in a book shop, whereas, in reality he is running a business in the name of his mother and is the sole beneficiary of the entire business income. It is also submitted that the respondent is a man of means, and the lifestyle and amenities enjoyed by him ought to be made available to the petitioner as well.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the order so impugned.

5. The evidence brought on record clearly demolishes the case now being sought to be set up by the petitioner. The petitioner had taken a plea that she had adopted a child, who happens to be the daughter of her real sister; however, she has specifically admitted in her cross-examination that the respondent had never given his consent for the said adoption. Admittedly, neither there is any documentary evidence or ceremony performed for the alleged adoption, nor any application was moved to change the details in the official records of the said child to demonstrate that the petitioner’s name was recorded or shown as the mother and the respondent’s name was recorded as a father of the said child.

6. The above-said fact clearly demonstrates the mala fide intent of the petitioner to mislead the Court and seek undue sympathy, which stand belied by her own admissions during cross-examination.

7. Further, as regards her entitlement for maintenance, the petitioner has concealed the material facts that she was duly recorded as an employee of Markanda Oil Store. Though it has been vehemently argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was never an employee of the said firm, however, in her cross-examination she admitted that she had availed various medical insurance benefits on the basis of the entries recorded in Markanda Oil Store, showing her as an employee. Moreover, the petitioner was also working as a teacher in a school, namely St. Joseph School, Ambala City; however, she failed to disclose the same in her affidavit of income and expenditure.

8. Furthermore, the petitioner has admitted that she holds various Kisan Vikas Patras and a Public Provident Fund account, wherein, the account balance exceeds Rs. 15 lakhs. Apart from these accounts, the petitioner also maintains other bank accounts, which were duly considered by the learned Trial Court, which clearly demonstrate that there was no distress or immediate financial hardship necessitating the grant of maintenance to the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner deliberately concealed these facts from the Court. She further admitting a separate salary account with Axis Bank, however, she neither produced proof thereof nor disclose the b