Select a page




Bench: JUSTICE U.L. Bhat

SHARIF AHMED Vs. IMAMAN BI On 20 February 1995

Law Point:
Wife has no excuse that her salary was not sufficient for her expenses. Maintenance denied to wife.





Revision petitioner is the husband of the respondent. They were married in 1976 and a son was born to them in 1977. After the birth of the child, the husband did not maintain the wife and the child. The wife filed an application under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of atleast Rs. 300/- for her and herself child alleging that her husband is a whole-sale bangle dealer and has five or six acres of land and an income of over Rs. 1200/-per month. The respondent husband also asserted that the wife and the son are being maintained by his ‘in-laws. The learned Magistrate accepted this plea and dismissed the petition. In revision, the Sessions Court ordered payment of maintenance to the wife at Rs. 300/- per month and to the son at Rs. 300/- per month with effect from 11.2.1988, the date on which the revision petition was filed. This order is now challenged by the husband. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner made it clear that he is not interested in challenging the order in favour of his son. The challenge is restricted to the order in favour of the wife.

2. On a date on which the application was filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C, the wife was without any independent means, she was entirely dependant on mercy and kindness of her parents. It is alleged that with effect from 5.7.1985, she was appointed as a Urdu Teacher with salary of Rs. 300/- per month. The husband who claims to be too poor to maintain the wife and the son took a second wife, divorced her and took a third wife also. It appears he has a child by the third wife. In the petition as amended before the first Court, the wife stated that her salary was not sufficient for meeting the expenses of herself and her son. She has no case that her salary was not sufficient for her expenses. Even going by her averments in her application, the husband’s income would not be more than Rs. 1200/-per month. Having regard to the entirety of the circumstances, while holding that the Sessions Judge was justified in ordering payment of maintenance to the wife, the amount awarded appears to be excessive, particularly since she is employed since 1985. In the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs. 100/- per month would be reasonable.

3. In the result, the impugned order is modified by reducing the maintenance payable to the wife from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 100/- per month. Revision petition is allowed in part.

Revision partly allowed

DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.

You may contact me for legal consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us

If you have any query related to gender biased laws join SahodarWhatsapp Groups by sending Whatsapp message “Subscribe” to Sahodar Trust No. 9811850498



Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.