Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a criminal revision petition filed by the wife against the Trial Court judgment wherein her application for maintenance was rejected, the Single Judge Bench of Gajendra Singh, J., allowed the petition, holding that the wife was presently pursuing her MD (Homeopathy) and required support. The Court further held that the husband has duty to empower wife and since he was serving in a public sector undertaking and earning a handsome salary of Rs 74,000, he shall pay Rs 15,000 per month as maintenance to the wife.
Background
The parties were married in 2018, but after 9 months, the wife filed a maintenance application for Rs. 25,000 per month, alleging cruelty, neglect of maintenance, inability to maintain herself, and the husband’s sufficiency of means. She alleged that from the first day she was subjected to the demand of dowry, resulting in cruelty for non-fulfilment of the demand, and she was ousted from the matrimonial home 3 months before the application.
The husband opposed the maintenance application and stated that there was no demand for dowry. He claimed that the wife’s sister, an advocate, had falsely implicated him in this proceeding. He contended that the wife was a qualified doctor rendering services in various hospitals and earning Rs 45,000 per month, and she had been living separately without any justification.
After appreciating the evidence, the Trial Court held that the wife was residing separately without sufficient reasons and rejected the maintenance application.
Aggrieved, she filed the present petition claiming that she had just renewed the registration for her practice and was jobless. She was financially dependent on her father and had borrowed money from the bank, whereas her husband was a skilled and qualified person working as a Technician (Mechanical) in Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd (‘ONGC’) with a salary of Rs 74,000.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court noted that the wife had completed her Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine Course in 2017 and got registered as a Homeopathic practitioner with the M.P. State Council of Homeopathy. Thereafter, she got married and began pursuing her post-graduation as an MD (Homeopathic). She worked briefly during the COVID pandemic in 2021 and was paid Rs. 25,000 per month for a few months of service.
The Court further noted that in 2018, the wife’s parents attempted to resolve the marital disputes between the couple but remained unsuccessful. Hence, the maintenance application was filed. The husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights only after receiving notice of maintenance. Thereafter, in his examination-in-chief, the husband did not mention that he ever tried to visit the wife to bring her back to the marital home; instead, he exhausted his energy to demonstrate that the wife was earning as a Homeopathic Medical Practitioner. The Court stated that his attempt to prove the same failed when she admitted that she had worked temporarily to address the COVID-19 situation. Thus, the Court held that the Trial Court’s decision that the wife was living separately for no sufficient cause was contrary to the evidence and proper understanding of Section 125(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’).
“Entering into a marital tie does not mean the end of the personality of the wife.”
Noting the husband’s liability to his parents and their ailments, the Court remarked that his approach was appreciable, but he could not totally ignore his wife. His allegation that the wife was insisting on living separately from the in-laws was not affirmed by the evidence.
“If the husband has a duty towards his parents, then he also has the duty to complete the course that would enhance the capability of the wife and to empower her. Equality in marital tie-up does not mean development of only one, and restrictions for the other, especially the wife.”
Thus, the Court set aside the impugned judgment, holding that the wife was presently pursuing her MD (Homeopathy) and required support. Further, the Court held that as the husband was serving in a public sector undertaking and earning a handsome salary of Rs 74,000, an amount of Rs 15,000 per month shall be payable as maintenance to the wife from the date of application, except for the period of one year for which she was getting a stipend. The amount paid as interim maintenance, if any, shall be adjusted.
The Court also directed that if, after completing the course, the wife gets a job or there is a change in the circumstances and there is no reconciliation between the parties, then she may file for modification of the order under Section 127 of the CrPC.
[V v. S, Criminal Revision No. 793 of 2025, decided on 15-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Pragya Swami
For the respondent: Nipun Choudhary
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
