Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a criminal revision filed by a wife and daughter seeking enhancement of maintenance awarded by the trial court, the Single Judge Bench of Gajendra Singh, J., partly allowed the petition, holding that the wife and daughter of a government servant could not be compelled to survive merely on the mercy of the husband, and the husband could not be permitted to discriminate between the educational expenses of the son and daughter. Accordingly, the Court enhanced the wife’s maintenance from Rs 5000 to Rs 7500 per month and the daughter’s maintenance from Rs 2000 to Rs 10,000 per month, holding that the minor daughter deserved priority consideration over the major son.
Background
Petitioner 1 (wife) and respondent (husband) got married in 2001 as per Hindu rites and rituals, and had 2 children out of wedlock, a major son and a minor daughter. The daughter was in Class 11th and living with her mother.
The wife and daughter filed a maintenance application under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, before the trial court, alleging various acts of cruelty, including physical assault, harassment, and economic exploitation by the husband. It was further alleged that he neglected and refused to maintain his wife and daughter despite having sufficient means, as he earned approximately Rs 80,000 per month and possessed immovable properties yielding an annual income of around Rs 15 lakhs. On these grounds, they sought maintenance of Rs 50,000 per month.
The husband filed a reply denying allegations of cruelty and neglect, alleging that the wife had deprived him of conjugal rights and used to create disputes based on unfounded suspicion regarding his female colleagues. He contended that he was bearing the educational expenses of the major son who was pursuing BTech in Jaipur, amounting to Rs 5.45 lakhs per annum, along with monthly pocket expenses of Rs 5 to 7000. Additionally, he contended that he was bearing the expenses of his wife’s heart ailment.
The trial court partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs 5000 per month to the wife and Rs 2000 per month to the daughter, holding that they were unable to maintain themselves and that the husband had sufficient means. However, considering that the respondent was making partial arrangements for maintenance and was also responsible for maintaining his aged parents, the aforesaid maintenance amount was awarded.
Aggrieved, the wife and daughter filed the present criminal revision seeking enhancement of maintenance to Rs 20,000 per month for the wife and Rs 10,000 per month for the daughter.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court noted that the husband was a physically challenged teacher in a government school earning a basic salary of Rs 55,900, gross salary of Rs 81,130, and a net salary of Rs 72,915 per month. The daughter was studying in Class XI for the Academic Session 2024-2025 at Carmel Convent Senior Secondary School, Neemuch. The daughter stated that only her school fees had been paid by her father (the husband), and thereafter, no other educational or personal expenses were borne by him.
Noting the daughter’s statement, the Court remarked that, “children pursuing school education cannot be left at the mercy of the parents”. If the husband claims that he was voluntarily bearing educational expenses, such payment could not dilute his statutory obligation to maintain his wife and minor daughter. The Court also noted that the trial court ignored the source of income from agricultural land, which was in his father’s name.
“The wife and daughter of a government servant cannot be compelled to survive merely on the mercy of the husband. The husband cannot be permitted to discriminate between the educational expenses of the son and daughter.”
The Court stated that if the husband was bearing substantial expenses for the technical education of the major son, the same could not be a ground to restrict reasonable maintenance and educational support to the minor daughter. Further, the husband’s father was a pensioner receiving pensionary benefits. Thus, the minor daughter deserved priority consideration over the major son.
Considering the husband’s income, rising cost of living, educational needs of the daughter, and overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Court held that the amount awarded by the trial court required enhancement. Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the petition, thereby enhancing the wife’s maintenance to Rs 7500 per month and the daughter’s maintenance to Rs 10,000 per month.
The Court further directed that the enhanced amount shall be payable from the date of application (22 February 2024) and the amount already deposited shall be adjusted accordingly.
[Madhu v. Hemendra Kumar, Criminal Revision No. 4655 of 2025, decided on 29-5-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Bhuwneshwari Mishra
For the respondent: Nilesh Manore
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
