Recently, the Allahabad High Court held that even an unemployed husband is bound to provide maintenance to his wife under Section 125 of the CrPC, as he can earn Rs 350-400 per day as an unskilled labourer. A bench of Justice Renu Aggarwal was considering a criminal revision filed challenging the order passed by the Family Court, whereby the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the wife was partly allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay the wife Rs. 2,000.

In this case, the marriage of the revisionist (husband) and opposite party No. 2 (wife) took place without dowry. Later, he filed an IPC against the reviewer. The complaint is filed under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, and 3/4 of the DP Act. The husband got bail in the case.

The husband filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, which is still pending. Meanwhile, the wife filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC, which was dismissed by the trial court on the ongoing Section 9 application.

Arjun Singh Somvanshi, counsel for the husband, said that the trial court failed to consider the fact that the wife had left her in-laws' house without any valid reason and was living in her parents' house since January 28, 2016.

The counsel has placed reliance on Section 125(4) of the CrPC, which provides that if the wife is committing adultery or living separately without any sufficient cause, she is not entitled to any maintenance from her husband.

The bench, after considering the arguments of both parties, found that opposition no. 2 did not produce any evidence to support this claim. However, there is conclusive evidence on record to show that the revisionist is in good health, capable of earning a livelihood, and therefore bound to provide maintenance to his wife, opposite party no. 2.

Citing the case of Anju Garg vs. Deepak Kumar Garg, the High Court said that if the court holds that the reviewer is bound to provide maintenance to his wife,

Further, the bench noted that the revisionist's counsel argued that the wife was engaged in adultery, but this claim was refuted during the trial. The objection raised by the revisionist is that there is no indication or evidence of adultery, and the trial court's lack of regard to the identity of the alleged adulterous partner.

Additionally, the petitioner has the option to file an application under Section 127 of the CrPC. If he wishes to establish that the wife is involved in adultery, he can obtain appropriate relief. The High Court was of the opinion that the revisionist was not paying any amount for the maintenance of his wife, which was a reflection of the revisionist's conduct and his respect for his wife.

Case Title: Kamal vs. State of UP.

Bench: Justice Renu Aggarwal

Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 461 of 2023