The Punjab & Haryana High Court denied maintenance to a wife who concealed her job, income, and assets while seeking relief under Section 125 CrPC. The ruling reinforces that maintenance is for genuine destitution, not a shortcut to extract money from husbands.
CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a wife challenging the rejection of her maintenance claim under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court held that the wife had deliberately hidden her employment details, income, and substantial financial assets, and therefore failed to prove that she was unable to maintain herself.
The petition challenged an order passed by the Family Court, Kurukshetra, which had dismissed the wife’s application for maintenance. The wife argued that the Family Court wrongly concluded that she had suppressed material facts regarding her employment and financial position. She claimed that even if she was earning some amount, it was insufficient for her survival, and that she was living with and dependent on her father.
After hearing the matter, Justice Alok Jain examined the record and found that the evidence completely contradicted the version put forward by the petitioner. The Court noted that the wife had attempted to project financial helplessness while actively concealing facts that showed otherwise.
Justice Alok Jain observed:
“Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been enacted with a specific purpose to protect women and children and to prevent vagrancy and destitution among them. It provides speedy remedy to the destituted and helpless women to establish their claim, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to prove that she is unable to maintain herself and her child but in the present case, the petitioner has concealed her employment and claimed his husband is earning handsome amount, her conduct in suppressing relevant information from the Court and the fact that she is not only qualified but is capable of earning good money.”
The Court further reminded that anyone approaching the judiciary must do so honestly, observing that a litigant must come with clean hands, a clean mind, a clean heart, and a clean objective, and that no person has a right to waste the Court’s time or public resources to settle personal scores.
The High Court noted that the wife had taken a plea that she had adopted a child, who was the daughter of her real sister. However, during cross-examination, she admitted that her husband had never consented to such adoption. There was no documentary proof, no ceremony, and no official record to support the claim. These amdmissions, according to the Court, clearly showed a mala fide attempt to mislead the judiciary and invoke undue sympathy.
On the financial side, the petitioner admitted to holding Kisan Vikas Patras and a Public Provident Fund account with balances exceeding ₹15 lakh, apart from other bank accounts. She also acknowledged having a separate salary account with Axis Bank but failed to disclose the balance or produce documents despite specific questions. The Court noted that these facts clearly showed that she was not facing any immediate financial hardship that would justify maintenance.
The High Court also took note that the parties had been living separately since July 5, 2019, and during this long period, the wife failed to show any real financial distress. She was found to be highly qualified, holding degrees of B.Ed., M.A. (Hindi), and M.A. (Art and Craft), and had remained gainfully employed. The Court expressed doubt over her claim that her income had reduced from ₹18,000 per month to ₹12,200 per month, calling it improbable and reflective of an attempt to misuse the legal process to harass the husband through prolonged litigation.
Emphasising that maintenance law cannot be misused, the Court clearly held that Section 125 CrPC is meant to prevent vagrancy and destitution, not to become a tool for unjust enrichment. The Court also referred to the growing trend of frivolous maintenance cases and observed that such misuse defeats the purpose of the law and undermines a “woman’s dignity and self-reliance.”
Relying on settled law, the Court reiterated that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is payable only when the wife is genuinely unable to maintain herself, referring to the Supreme Court judgments in “Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai” and “Rajnesh v. Neha”, which stress full disclosure of income and assets and clarify that maintenance is not a source of easy money.
In conclusion, the High Court held that it “does not find any error in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court.” Since the wife failed to prove destitution and was found to have concealed material facts, the petition was dismissed.
Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Discussed In The Case
| Law / Section | Purpose of the Law | How It Was Applied in This Case |
| Section 125 CrPC | Provides speedy maintenance to wives, children, and parents to prevent destitution and vagrancy | Court held that maintenance is payable only if the wife proves inability to maintain herself. Concealment of income defeats the claim |
| Section 125 CrPC (Burden of Proof) | Requires claimant to disclose true income, assets, and financial capacity | Wife failed to make full disclosure of employment, salary accounts, investments, and bank balances |
| Principle of Clean Hands Doctrine | A litigant must approach the court with honesty and full disclosure | Court found deliberate suppression of material facts, misleading pleadings, and attempt to gain sympathy |
| Supreme Court Precedent: Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) | Maintenance not payable if wife has sufficient independent income | Applied to deny maintenance as wife was qualified, employed, and financially secure |
| Supreme Court Precedent: Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) | Mandatory disclosure of income and assets in maintenance cases | Wife violated disclosure obligations by hiding salary account and investments |
| Concept of Unjust Enrichment | Law cannot be misused for monetary gain beyond necessity | Court held Section 125 CrPC cannot be converted into a tool for extracting money from husband |
| Abuse of Process of Law | Courts must prevent frivolous and dishonest litigation | Petition held to be an abuse meant to harass the husband through prolonged litigation |
Case Details
| Particular | Details |
| Case Title | Anu Aggarwal v. Sushant Aggarwal |
| Case Number | CRR(F)-1195-2025 |
| Court | Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Date of Decision | 13.01.2026 |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench |
| Judge | Alok Jain |
| Petitioner | Anu Aggarwal |
| Respondent | Sushant Aggarwal |
| Counsel for Petitioner | Mr. Ashish K. Gupta, Advocate |
| Lower Court | Principal Judge, Family Court, Kurukshetra (Camp Court at Shahabad) |
| Impugned Order Date | 08.07.2025 |
| Final Outcome | Petition dismissed |
Key Takeaways
- Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is not automatic; a wife must honestly prove that she is genuinely unable to maintain herself.
- Concealing employment, income, or assets is fatal to a maintenance claim and amounts to abuse of the judicial process.
- Highly qualified and earning spouses cannot project artificial helplessness to extract money from husbands.
- Courts are increasingly recognising that maintenance law cannot be converted into a tool for harassment or unjust enrichment.
- False narratives and half-truths in maintenance cases ultimately harm men by forcing them into prolonged, costly litigation without legal merit.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.