Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
No Supreme Court case directly uses or originates the beg, borrow, steal phrase for husband's maintenance obligation; sources cite SC precedents like Shamima Farooqui, Chaturbhuj, Rajnesh v. Neha (husband's obligation on higher pedestal), Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi, Kuldeep Kaur for maintenance principles but without the proverb ["Vipul Lakhanpal VS Pooja Sharma - Crimes"] ["Vipul Lakhanpal VS Pooja Sharma - Himachal Pradesh"] ["Vipul Lakhanpal VS Pooja Sharma - Current Civil Cases"] ["Dheeraj Chaurasia VS Jyoti Chaurasia - Madhya Pradesh"] ["Laxmi Das VS Madhusudan Das - Calcutta"] ["Sunit Kumar VS Rita - Punjab and Haryana"] ["Sunit Kumar VS Rita - Crimes"]. Phrase is proverbial/High Court usage, limited by wife's earning capacity and statutory law (e.g., CrPC §125, DV Act) ["Sanjay Bhardwaj VS State - Delhi"] ["KUNDAL GOSWAMI vs CHINKI DAS - Gauhati"].
In Indian family law, few issues spark as much debate as a husband's duty to provide maintenance for his wife. A provocative query often arises: Supreme Court: Beg, Borrow, Steal for Wife's Maintenance? Husband's Obligation for Wife's Maintenance case name. This phrase, rooted in longstanding judicial rhetoric, underscores the intensity of the obligation under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). Section 125 CrPC mandates that a husband with sufficient means must maintain his wife if she cannot support herself.
But does this mean a husband must truly beg, borrow, or steal to fulfill this duty? While courts have historically affirmed a husband's primary responsibility—drawing from ancient texts like the Manusmriti—modern rulings introduce balance, considering both spouses' earning capacities. This post examines key principles, landmark interpretations, enforcement mechanisms, and evolving judicial perspectives. Note: This is general information based on precedents and not specific legal advice; consult a lawyer for personalized guidance.
Courts have repeatedly emphasized that the husband's obligation to maintain his wife is paramount and arises from the marital bond itself. This duty persists even during separation or litigation, independent of property ownership or current employment.
A seminal view captures this starkly: The first and foremost duty of the husband is to maintain the wife and the child – He may beg, borrow or steal Rajesh VS Sunita - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 2589. This echoes ancient wisdom from the Manusmriti, as interpreted in Mitakshara: The aged parents, a virtuous wife and an infant child must be maintained even by doing a hundred misdeeds Raghubala Sharma VS Chandra Prakash Sharma - 1987 0 Supreme(Raj) 83Raghu Bala Sharma VS Chandra Prakash Sharma - 1987 0 Supreme(Raj) 449.
Under Section 125(1) CrPC, sufficient means is interpreted broadly, focusing on earning potential rather than current income:- A healthy, able-bodied husband—even if unemployed or a student—is presumed capable of earning. If he does not use his potentialities for earning, the wife cannot be denied the maintenance on that account. In the proverbial saying, the husband may beg, borrow and steal but must maintain his wife Ghalib Hussain VS Bilqees - 1988 0 Supreme(Raj) 776.- This status-based obligation holds during ongoing disputes, like cruelty claims, prioritizing the wife's immediate support Raghubala Sharma VS Chandra Prakash Sharma - 1987 0 Supreme(Raj) 83Raghu Bala Sharma VS Chandra Prakash Sharma - 1987 0 Supreme(Raj) 449.
Foundational precedents, such as Sri Raja Bommadevara Raja Lakshmi Dave Amma Gari v. Sri Raja B. Naganna Naidu Bahadur Zamindar Garu (AIR 1925 Mad 757) and Mulla's Hindu Law (Art. 554), reinforce this under Hindu law, seamlessly applied via Section 125 CrPC Raghubala Sharma VS Chandra Prakash Sharma - 1987 0 Supreme(Raj) 83Raghu Bala Sharma VS Chandra Prakash Sharma - 1987 0 Supreme(Raj) 449.
The threshold of sufficient means typically includes not just visible assets but potential earnings. Courts impute income to idle husbands, ensuring wives aren't left destitute.
However, judicial nuance emerges in contemporary cases. For instance, where both spouses are qualified and capable:- No law provides that a husband has to maintain a wife, living separately from him, irrespective of the fact whether he earns or not. Court cannot tell the husband that he should beg, borrow or steal but give maintenance to the wife, more so when the husband and wife are almost equally qualified and almost equally capable of earning and both of them claimed to be gainfully employed before marriage Rippal Harbanslal Suneja VS Vibhuti Rippal Suneja - 2017 Supreme(Bom) 1598.
This Delhi High Court perspective SANJAY BHARDWAJ & ORS. vs THE STATE & ANR. highlights reciprocity: Maintenance under laws like Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, weighs both parties' capacities. In one case, the court upheld interim maintenance for a wife who had left her job, citing the husband's improved earning potential reflected in his salary slip Rippal Harbanslal Suneja VS Vibhuti Rippal Suneja - 2017 Supreme(Bom) 1598.
Similarly, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Section 20), maintenance aligns with existing rights under CrPC. Courts reduce awards if the wife is qualified to earn: Having regard to the qualifications of wife, there is no reason as to why she ought not to be in a position to maintain herself Prashant Ojha VS Shalu Ojha - 2015 Supreme(Del) 515. An appellate court appropriately slashed maintenance from Rs. 2,50,000 to Rs. 50,000 monthly based on evidence Prashant Ojha VS Shalu Ojha - 2015 Supreme(Del) 515.
In another ruling, unemployment isn't a blanket defense: Inability of earning is not a valid defence—While granting maintenance the court has to weigh the comparative hardship of husband and of the wife Sukrit Verma VS State of Rajasthan - 2011 Supreme(Raj) 423. Courts below were upheld in allowing maintenance despite the husband's jobless claim, as non-payment constitutes domestic violence.
Section 125(3) CrPC provides robust enforcement:- Imprisonment up to one month per defaulted month, as maintenance is a continuing liability Rajesh VS Sunita - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 2589.- For 12 months' arrears, up to 12 months' imprisonment is legal Rajesh VS Sunita - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 2589.- Crucially, imprisonment doesn't erase arrears: On undergoing imprisonment in default of maintenance, liability to pay will not wipe out, which shall subsist till the payment is made Rajesh VS Sunita - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 2589.
These measures ensure compliance, treating maintenance as an unyielding right.
While the query seeks Supreme Court affirmations of beg, borrow, steal, the reviewed contexts lack direct invocations from the apex court. Principles thrive in High Court (e.g., Orissa High Court, 1982 Cr LJ 485) and lower rulings, rooted in pre-independence cases. Supreme Court precedents like Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi (1975) and Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) broadly uphold Section 125 but don't employ the queried phrasing.
Researchers should consult databases like SCC Online or Manupatra for nuanced affirmations.
Recent trends shift from absolute duty to equitable assessment:- Courts scrutinize wives' earning potential, especially post-marriage employment history SANJAY BHARDWAJ & ORS. vs THE STATE & ANR..- Under Domestic Violence Act, orders mirror CrPC limits; no new rights created Prashant Ojha VS Shalu Ojha - 2015 Supreme(Del) 515.- Comparative hardship guides awards, rejecting one-sided burdens on unemployed but capable husbands Sukrit Verma VS State of Rajasthan - 2011 Supreme(Raj) 423.
This evolution reflects gender-neutral family law principles, promoting self-reliance while safeguarding vulnerable parties.
The husband's duty under Section 125 CrPC remains a cornerstone of Indian family law—often described as first and foremost, even invoking dramatic phrases like beg, borrow, or steal Rajesh VS Sunita - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 2589Ghalib Hussain VS Bilqees - 1988 0 Supreme(Raj) 776. Yet, enforcement is tempered by realities: earning capacities of both spouses matter, preventing undue hardship Rippal Harbanslal Suneja VS Vibhuti Rippal Suneja - 2017 Supreme(Bom) 1598SANJAY BHARDWAJ & ORS. vs THE STATE & ANR..
Key Takeaways:- Obligation is primarily status-based but considers potential earnings Ghalib Hussain VS Bilqees - 1988 0 Supreme(Raj) 776.- Defaults invite strict penalties, with arrears surviving imprisonment Rajesh VS Sunita - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 2589.- Modern courts balance equities, especially for qualified wives Prashant Ojha VS Shalu Ojha - 2015 Supreme(Del) 515Sukrit Verma VS State of Rajasthan - 2011 Supreme(Raj) 423.- No direct Supreme Court use of queried phrases, but principles align with broader jurisprudence.
For those navigating maintenance disputes, professional legal counsel is essential. Stay informed on evolving precedents to protect your rights.
#Section125CrPC, #HusbandMaintenance, #FamilyLawIndia
Court cannot tell the husband that he should beg, borrow or steal but give maintenance to the wife, more so when the husband and wife are almost equally qualified and almost equally capable of earning and both of them claimed to be gainfully employed before marriage. ... Thus, maintenance can be fixed by the Court under Domestic Violence Act only as per prevalent law regarding providing of #HL_STA....
If he does not use his potentialities for earning, the wife cannot be denied the maintenance on that account. In the proverbial saying, the husband may beg, borrow and steal but must maintain his wife. ... The income of the husband was stated to be Rs 4 000/- per month. The wife demanded a sum of Rs 400/ by way of interim maintenance so long the proceeding remains pending The husband resisted the ....
Court cannot tell the husband that he should beg, borrow or steal but give maintenance to the wife, more so when the husband and wife are almost equally qualified and almost equally capable of earning and both of them ... Thus, maintenance can be fixed by the Court under Domestic Violence Act only as per prevalent law regarding providing of maintenance by hu....
Gupta has come out with an important dimension of the Branch of law by contending that the Manus mandate in this respect is that beg, borrow, or steal, but you must maintain your wife. In this regard he has pointed out the judgment of the Orissa High Court of Honble Justice N.C. ... The husband would maintain her separately as a wife and living together and the courts would be liable for giving direction for maintenance on considering the c....
Gupta has come out with an important dimension of the Branch of law by contending that the Manu's mandate in this respect is that beg borrow, or steal, but you must maintain your wife. In this regard he has pointed out the judgment of the Orissa High Court of Hon'ble Justice R.C. ... The husband would maintain her separately as a wife and live together and the courts would be liable for giving direction for maintenance on considering the ca....
Court cannot tell the husband that he should beg, borrow or steal but give maintenance to the wife, more so when the husband and wife are almost equally qualified and almost equally capable of earning and both of them claimed to be gainfully employed before marriage. ... As far as dependency on parents is concerned, I consider that once a person is grown up, educated he cannot be asked to beg and borrow#H....
Court cannot tell the husband that he should beg, borrow or steal but give maintenance to the wife, more so when the husband and wife are almost equally qualified and almost equally capable of earning and both of them claimed to be gainfully employed before marriage. ... As far as dependency on parents is concerned, I consider that once a person is grown up, educated he cannot be asked to beg and borrow#H....
Court cannot tell the husband that he should beg, borrow or steal but give maintenance to the wife, more so when the husband and wife are almost equally qualified and almost equally capable of earning and both of them claimed to be gainfully employed before marriage. ... As far as dependency on parents is concerned, I consider that once a person is grown up, educated he cannot be asked to beg and borrow#H....
The first and foremost duty of the husband is to maintain the wife and the child. He may beg, borrow or steal. ... In para No.12 of Sunit Kumar Versus Rita and others judgment referred above while dealing with the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that Executing Court cannot sentence the husband beyond the period of one month, it was found that the said argument was without force since in case Shantha ... wife. ... In ....
It was held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi that Court cannot tell the husband that he should beg, borrow or steal but give maintenance to the wife, moreso when the husband and wife are almost equally qualified and almost equally capable of earning and both of them claimed to be gainfully employed ... The petitioner husband is an engineer by profession and in order to maintain the status of her....
v. State and Anr, reported in 2010 (5) CRJ 446 (Del) , in which it is observed that the Court cannot tell the husband that he should beg, borrow or steal but give maintenance to the wife, more so when the husband and wife are almost equally qualified and almost equally capable of earning and both of them claimed to be gainfully employed before the marriage. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied on the observations in the case of Sanjay Bhardwaj & ors. Again, the aforesaid observations are inapplicable to the facts of the present case, because, in the present case,....
No law provides that a husband has to maintain a wife, living separately from him, irrespective of the fact whether he earns or not. Court cannot tell the husband that he should beg, borrow or steal but give maintenance to the wife, more so when the husband and wife are almost equally qualified and almost equally capable of earning and both of them claimed to be gainfully employed before marriage”.
Reliance in this behalf has been placed upon Sanjay Bhardwaj V. State, 2010(118) DRJ 358 where it was held that Section 20 of the Act only enables the Magistrate to pass the order as per the rights available under the existing law and does not create any additional right in favour of the wife. The amount of interim maintenance granted by the Trial Court was reduced therefore. Further, in Bhushan Kumar Meen V. Mansi Meen, (2010)15 SCC 372, it was observed that having regard to the qualifications of wife, there is no reason as to why she ought not to be in a position to maintain herself. #HL_S....
Thus, according to the learned counsel, in the present case, since the husband is unemployed, since the wife is earning by selling her paintings, the husband cannot be forced to maintain his wife. For, the Court cannot tell the husband to beg, borrow, or steal but give maintenance to the wife, more so when the husband and wife are almost equally qualified and almost equally capable of earning”. State & Another, (Cr.M.C. No.491/2009 decided by Delhi High Court on 27-8-2010), the learned counsel has contended that “there is no requirement in law for the husband to maintain hi....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
