Gujarat High Court Rejects Husband's Bid to Slash Maintenance for Wife Battling Cancer

The High Court of Gujarat has firmly dismissed a criminal revision application filed by a husband seeking to overturn an order directing him to pay ₹50,000 per month in maintenance to his wife who suffers from cancer. The ruling underscores that claims of dwindling business income or post-COVID recession cannot absolve a husband of his statutory duty under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

From Shared Business Life to Bitter Separation

Vasantbhai Premjibhai Vekariya and his wife married in June 1995. They built their life together in Vidhyanagar, where she assisted in his business and they later acquired joint property. Their son, now an adult studying abroad, was born in 1999. Over time, relations soured; the couple stopped communicating, and the wife alleged neglect and harassment. She moved out in 2019 after filing for maintenance before the Family Court at Anand. The court ultimately awarded her ₹50,000 monthly from the date of her application, factoring in her cancer diagnosis and ongoing treatment costs.

The husband, operating as proprietor of Rutumn Enterprise with a Canon franchise, challenged the order, arguing his income had plummeted and business activities had ceased after property auctions and economic hardship.

Husband's Claims of Poverty Versus Wife's Evidence of Luxury Lifestyle

Representing the applicant, advocate Ashish M. Dagli contended that the Family Court ignored income tax returns and audit reports showing modest earnings of around ₹2 lakh annually. He highlighted interim maintenance of ₹15,000, business setbacks after COVID, and the wife's alleged ability to support herself with a degree in Home Science and Fashion Designing. The revision petition painted the final award as excessive and punitive.

Advocate Darshit R. Brahmbhatt, for the wife, painted a starkly different picture. He pointed to bank overdraft facilities of ₹50 lakh, crores in turnover in the HDFC current account, frequent foreign trips to Dubai, Japan, and Australia, and recovery proceedings initiated by the husband himself for ₹15 lakh. Medical insurance payouts of ₹1.70 lakh and ₹2.75 lakh that never reached the wife were also cited, underscoring the husband's unwillingness to meet even basic treatment expenses.

Judicial Scrutiny of Evidence and Legal Precedents

Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar carefully examined the record, including the husband's own complaints about an alleged ₹25 lakh theft at his Surat office and ongoing business disputes. The Court noted that no Profit & Loss accounts accompanied recent tax returns and found the husband's narrative of complete business closure unconvincing. Loans obtained after the alleged auction of joint property further indicated active commercial activity.

The bench relied on Supreme Court precedents to reject the argument that a wife's educational qualifications alone relieve the husband of liability:

> "Whether the deserted wife was unable to maintain herself, has to be decided on the basis of the material placed on record... The wife should be in a position to maintain standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but what is consistent with status of a family."

The Court emphasized that the wife produced no evidence of independent income and that her cancer treatment needs formed a critical consideration in fixing quantum.

Pivotal Observations from the Bench

Justice Suthar made several pointed remarks while upholding the Family Court order:

> "It is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, the husband was required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on any legally permissible ground mentioned in the statute."

> "Merely reduction or decrease in income is not a ground to deny or to absolve from the liability to pay the maintenance. The obligation of the husband to provide the maintenance stands on a higher pedestal than the wife."

The bench also stressed the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, holding that findings of fact cannot be disturbed unless they are perverse or suffer from patent error.

Final Order and Wider Implications

The revision application was dismissed, confirming the ₹50,000 monthly maintenance with effect from March 2019. Interim relief previously granted was vacated. The decision reinforces that able-bodied husbands facing matrimonial disputes must demonstrate bona fide inability with concrete material rather than selective tax filings. It also highlights courts' willingness to look beyond stated income when evidence of lifestyle, loans, and business continuity suggests otherwise—particularly where a spouse requires medical care.

This judgment serves as a clear reminder that Section 125 CrPC proceedings remain a beneficial legislation designed to prevent vagrancy, not a forum for prolonged financial attrition.