Wife living apart without valid reason not entitled to maintenance: HC

The Allahabad High Court has observed that a wife living separately from her husband without a valid reason is not entitled to maintenance and set aside a family court order granting maintenance to a married woman.

Allowing a revision petition filed by the woman's husband, Vipul Agrawal, Justice Subhas Chandra Sharma set aside the February 17 order of maintenance passed by the additional principal judge of the family court in Meerut.

"The trial court has recorded the finding that the wife failed to prove that she is living separately from the husband with sufficient reasons and the husband is neglecting to maintain her, even though the amount of maintenance has been fixed in favour of the wife at Rs 5,000 per month.

"As per the provision contained under section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), if the wife is living separately from the husband without sufficient reasons, she is not entitled to maintenance," the high court said.

During the course of the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court has recorded the finding that the wife is living separately from her husband without sufficient reasons. Despite this, the family court has fixed the amount of maintenance at Rs 5,000 per month.

He also submitted that the trial court has not considered the earning capacity of the petitioner but fixed the amount of maintenance in favour of the wife and a minor child at Rs 5,000 and Rs 3,000, totalling Rs 8,000 per month.

However, the lawyer representing the woman and the state counsel submitted that she is living separately from her husband due to his neglect and that is why the trial court has allowed the application and fixed the amount of maintenance.

Allowing the revision petition of the husband, the court said, "In view of the aforesaid finding as recorded by the trial court in relation to the second issue and the order fixing the amount at Rs 5,000 per month in favour of the wife, both are contradictory and in violation of the provision as contained in section 125(4), CrPC. Therefore, the order dated February 17, 2025 being erroneous requires interference by this court."  The court, in its judgment dated July 8, sent the matter back to the family court to decide it afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties.

However, the court made it clear that the petitioner will continue to pay an amount of Rs 3,000 per month for the wife and Rs 2,000 per month for the child as interim maintenance during the pendency of the application.