PRAYAGRAJ<\/em>: The Allahabad High Court<\/strong> clearly held that a Working Wife who is earning well and can maintain herself is not entitled<\/strong> to maintenance<\/strong> from her husband under Section 125 of the CrPC<\/a><\/strong>. The Court passed this order while hearing a criminal revision<\/strong> filed by the husband challenging the Family Court’s<\/a> direction<\/strong> asking him to pay \u20b95,000 per month to his wife.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Madan Pal Singh<\/strong> examined the record and noted that the Family Court had ordered maintenance only to \u201cbalance the income<\/em><\/strong>\u201d of the husband and wife, even though the wife herself was earning \u20b936,000 per month. The High Court found this approach incorrect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband argued that the wife had not been honest in her application. She initially claimed that she was unemployed and had no income<\/strong>, but the evidence showed that she was a Postgraduate, a Web Designer<\/strong> by qualification, and working as a Senior Sales Coordinator<\/strong> in a private company. The High Court recorded the same fact, noting that she had shown \u201cnil<\/em><\/strong>\u201d liabilities in her affidavit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court observed from the trial court record that the wife had admitted in her affidavit and cross-examination that she earned between \u20b934,000 and \u20b936,000 monthly. The Court then held that for a wife <\/strong>who has no major financial responsibilities<\/strong>, such income is not small or insufficient. Meanwhile, the husband had the responsibility of taking care of his aged parents and fulfilling other social duties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Thus, this Court is of the view that as per the provision of Section 125(1)(a), the opposite party no. 2 is not entitled to get any maintenance from her husband\/revisionist as she is an earning lady and able to maintain herself.”<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The High Court also took serious note of the fact that the wife had hidden important facts about her job and education from the Family Court. In her earlier application, she called herself \u201cilliterate and unemployed<\/em><\/strong>\u201d, but during cross-examination she accepted her income and employment when shown the documents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court criticised this behaviour and reproduced the settled legal principle:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “It is settled law that when a person approaches a Court, he should approach the Court not only with clean hands but also with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective. It is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The judicial process should never become an instrument of appreciation or abuse or a means in the process of the Court to subvert justice.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner he wishes.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Easy, access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. If a petitioner is guilty of suppression of very important fact his case cannot be considered on merits. Thus, a litigant is bound to make full and true disclosure of facts.”<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court then referred to the Supreme Court judgment<\/a> in Rekha Sharad Ushir vs. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd<\/em><\/strong>.<\/em> and quoted paragraph 11:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “11. It is settled law that a litigant who, while filing proceedings in the court, suppresses material facts or makes a false statement, cannot seek justice from the court. The facts suppressed must be material and relevant to the controversy, which may have a bearing on the decision making. Cases of those litigants who have no regard for the truth and those who indulge in suppressing material facts need to be thrown out of the court.”<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Based on these findings, the High Court declared<\/strong> that the wife did not deserve any sympathy<\/strong> because she was earning enough to maintain herself and had also hidden important facts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The judgment concluded that she \u201cdoes not deserve any sympathy<\/em><\/strong>\u201d and set aside the Family Court\u2019s order directing the husband to pay maintenance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thus, the criminal revision filed by the husband was allowed<\/strong>, and the earlier maintenance order was cancelled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Explanatory Table of All Laws and Sections Mentioned<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Case Summary<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Counsel for Revisionist (Husband)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Counsel for Opposite Party \/ State<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Case Number Before Family Court<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Impugned Order Challenged<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Key Factual Findings<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Key Takeaways<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td> Explained in Simple Terms<\/strong><\/td> How It Applied in This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 125 CrPC<\/strong><\/td> Provides quick relief of maintenance to a wife, child, or parents who cannot maintain themselves.<\/td> The Court held that the wife is not eligible<\/strong> because she earns \u20b936,000 monthly and admitted she can maintain herself.<\/td><\/tr> Section 125(1)(a) CrPC<\/strong><\/td> Maintenance<\/a> to wife only if she is \u201cunable to maintain herself.\u201d<\/td> The Court quoted: \u201cthe opposite party no. 2 is not entitled to get any maintenance\u2026 as she is an earning lady and able to maintain herself.\u201d<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Principle of Clean Hands Doctrine<\/strong> (general legal principle)<\/td> A litigant must disclose all material facts honestly; if they hide facts, they lose the right to relief.<\/td> The wife claimed she was unemployed, but documents showed she was highly qualified and earning. Court held she did not come with clean hands<\/strong>.<\/td><\/tr> Supreme Court Judgment: Rekha Sharad Ushir v. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 641<\/strong><\/td> Supreme Court emphasised that litigants who suppress material facts cannot claim justice.<\/td> Quoted by High Court: \u201cCases of those litigants who have no regard for the truth\u2026 need to be thrown out of the court.\u201d<\/strong> This supported cancellation of maintenance.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n