Holding

The phrase "unable to maintain herself" means the wife lacks sufficient means to maintain herself as she was accustomed while living with her husband, and the lower courts' factual findings were not perverse, so the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking maintenance, claiming she was unemployed and unable to maintain herself. The husband contended that she earned income from house rent and the sale of agricultural land and could therefore maintain herself. The trial court, after evaluating the evidence, ordered the husband to pay Rs.1,500 per month, finding the wife unable to maintain herself; this finding was upheld by the revisional and High Courts. The Supreme Court examined the meaning of "unable to maintain herself" under Section 125, holding that it refers to the wife's means while living with her husband and does not include post‑desertion efforts. It further affirmed that the burden lies on the wife to prove the husband's sufficient means and her own inability to maintain herself, and that the lower courts' factual findings were not perverse. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

What is the scope and meaning of "unable to maintain herself" under Section 125 CrPC?
Whether the factual findings of the trial, revisional and High Courts that the wife was unable to maintain herself can be interfered with on appeal.
Who bears the burden of proof in a Section 125 maintenance proceeding and what must be established?

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 125, s. 482
Constitution of Indias. 12(3), s. 136, s. 15(3), s. 39

Subjects

Section 125 CrPCmaintenanceunable to maintain herselfburden of prooffactual findingsappellate reviewsocial justicemarital law

Judgment

}

CHATURBHUJ A
v.
SITA BAI

NOVEMBER 27, 2007
B
[DR.ARIJITPASAYAT ANDAFTABALAM,JJ.]

Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973:

s.125-Claim for maintenance by wife-Wife not having c
sufficient means to maintain herself and husband having sufficient
means-Order of maintenance by Courts below after analyzing
evidence-Interference with-Held: Conclusion ofcourts below that
wife was unable to maintain herself was essentially factual and not
perverse-Thus, inte1ference not called for-Constitution ofIndia- D
Article 136.

s.125-Maintenance proceedings-Object of-Held: s.125 is a
measure ofsocialjustice, especially enacted to protect women, children
and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves, and falls
within constitutional sweep ofArticle 12(3) reinforced by Article 39 E
ofthe Constitution-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 15(3) and
39-Socialjustice.

Words and phrases: "unable to maintain herself'-Meaning a/-
Jn the context of s.125 of Code a/Criminal Procedure, 1973. F

The respondent-wife filed an application under s.125 Cr.P.C.
claiming Rs.10,000/- as maintenance from the appellant-husband. In the
application, it was claimed that she was unemployed and unable to
maintain herself. G
The stand of the appellant was thatthe wife was living in the house
constructed by him; that she had let out the house on rent and since
1979 was residing with one of their sons; that the wife had sold the

577 H
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A agricultural land and sale proceeds were still with her; and that she could
maintain herself from the money received from the sale of agricultural
land and rent

Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court directed
B husband to pay Rs.1500 per month opining that the wife did not have
sufficient means to maintain herself. The revisional Court analysed the
evidence and dismissed the revision petition holding that the appellant's
monthly income was more than Rs.10,000/- and the amount received
as rent by the respondent-wife was not sufficient to maintain herself.

C Appellant ftled an application under s.482 Cr.P.C. before the High
Court The High Court dismissed the application holding that the
conclusions by the trial Court and the Revisional Court were arrived at
on appreciation of evidence and therefore there was no scope for any
interference. Hence the present appeal.
D
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to
punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by
E compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to
support themselves and who have a moral claim to support The phrase
"unable to maintain herself' would mean that means available to the
deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take
within itself the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive
F somehow. S.125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially
enacted to protect women and children and falls within constitutional
sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of
India, 1950. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply offood, clothing
and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights
G and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents
when they are unable to maintain themselves. [Para 5] [586-B, C, D, E]
Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushalv. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Ors.,
AIR (1978) SC 1807 and Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State ofGujarat
and Ors., (2005) 2 Supreme 503, relied on.
H
}

CHATURBHUJ v. SITA BAI 579

1.2. Under the law, the burden is placed in the first place upon the A
wife to show that the means of her husband are sufficient. In the instant
case, there is no dispute that the appellant has the requisite means. But
there is an inseparable condition which has also to be satisfied that the
wife was unable to maintain herselt: These two conditions are in addition
to the requirement that the husband must have neglected or refused to B
maintain his wife. The appellant has placed material to show that the
respondent-wife was earning some income. That is not sufficient to rule
out application of s.125 Cr.P.C. It has to be established that with the
amount she earned the respondent-wife was able to maintain herself.
Whether the deserted wife was unable to maintain herselt~ has to be C
decided on the basis of the material placed on record. Where the
personal income of the wife is insufficient she can claim maintenance
unders.125 Cr.P.C. The test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain
herself in the way she was used to at the place of her husband.
[Paras 6, 7 and 8] (583-F, G; 584-A, B, CJ D
Bhagwan v. Kamla Devi, AIR (1975) SC 83, relied on and re-
iterated.
2. The trial Court, the Revisional Court and the High Court
analysed the evidence and held that the respondent wife was unable to E
maintain herself. The conclusions are essentially factual and they are
not perverse. That being so there is no scope for interference in this
appeal. [Para 9] (584-D, E]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. F
1627 of2007.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.3.2006 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Misc. Cr!. Case No.1385/2006.
Shashindra Tirpathi, Sharad Tripathi and Debasis Misra for the G
Appellant.
Shashi Bhushan Kumar for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 12 S.C.R.

A DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT,J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single
Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, dismissing the
revision petition filed by the appellant in terms of Section 482 of the Code
B of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C. '). The challenge before
the High Court was to the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Neemuch, M.P. as affmned by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Neemuch, M.P. The respondent had filed an application under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the appellant.
C Undisputedly, the appellant and the respondent had entered into marital
knot about four decades back and for more than two decades they were
living separately. In the application it was claimed that she was unemployed
and unable to maintain herself. Appellant had retired from the post of
Assistant Director of Agriculture and was getting about Rs.8,000/- as
D pension and a similar amount as house rent. Besides this, he was lending
money to people on interest. The appellant claimed Rs. I 0,000/- as
maintenance. The stand of the appellant was that the applicant was living
in the house constructed by the present appellant who had purchased 7
bighas ofland in Ratlam in the name of the applicant. She let out the house
E on rent and since I979 was residing with one of their sons. The applicant
sold the agricultural land on I3.3.2003. The sale proceeds were still with
the applicant. The appellant was getting pension of about Rs.5, 700/- p.m.
and was not getting any house rent regularly. He was getting 2-3 thousand
rupees per month. The plea that the appellant had married another lady
F was denied. It was further submitted that the applicant at the relevant point
of time was staying in the house of the appellant and electricity and water
dues were being paid by him. The applicant can maintain herself from the
money received from the sale of agricultural land and rent. Considering
the evidence on record, the trial Court found that the applicant-respondent
did not have sufficient means to maintain herself.
G
3. Revision petition was filed by the present appellant. Challenge was
to the direction to pay Rs.I 500/- r.m. by the trial Court. The stand was
that the applicant was able to maintain herself from her income was
reiterated. The revisional court analysed the evidence and held that the
H appellant's monthly income was more than Rs. I 0,000/- and the amount
}

CHATURBHUJ v. SITA BAI [PASAYAT, J.] 581

received as rent by the respondent-claimant was not sufficient to maintain A
herself. The revision was accordingly dismissed. The matter was further
carried before the High Court by filing an application in terms of Section
482 Cr.P.C. The High Court noticed that the conclusions have been arrived
at on appreciation of evidence and, therefore, there is no scope for any
interference. B
4. Section 125 Cr.P.C. reads as follows:
"125. (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses
to maintain-
(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or
c
(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not,
unable to maintain itself, or
(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) D
who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any
physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself,
or
(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself,
E
a Magistrate of the First Class may, upon proof of such neglect or
refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the
maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such
monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as
such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as F
the Magistrate may from time to time direct:
Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor
female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until
she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband
of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient G
means. Explanation .-For the purposes of this Chapter,-
(a) 'minor' means a person who, under the provisions of the
Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9of1875), is deemed not to have
attained his majority; H
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A (b) 'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or
has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not
remarried."
["(2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim
maintenance and expenses of proceeding shall be payable from the
B
date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application
for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of
proceeding, as the case may be.";]
(3) Ifany person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply
c with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the
order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner
provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the
whole, or any port of each month's allowance 4 [allowance for
the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of
D proceeding , as the case may be] remaining unpaid after the
execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may
extend to one month or until payment if sooner made:
Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of
any amount due under this section unless application be made
E
to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year
from the date on which it became due:
Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife
on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to iive with
F him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal
stated by her, and may make an order under this section
notwithstanding such offer, ifhe is satisfied that there is just
ground for so doing.
Explanation.-If a husband has contracted marriage with
G another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to
be just ground for his wife's refusal to live with him.
(4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an 4 [allowance for the
maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of
H proceeding, as the case may be] from her husband under this
}

CHATURBHUJv. SITABAI[PASAYAT,J.] 583

section if she is living in adultel)', or if, without any sufficient reason, A
she refuses to live with her, husband, or if they are living separately
by mutual consent.

(5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been
made under this section is living in adultel)', or that without sufficient B
reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living
separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order."

5. The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish a
person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those
who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves C
and who have a moral claim to support. The phrase "unable to maintain
herself' in the instant case would mean that means available to the deserted
wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself
the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive somehow. Section
125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to D
protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain
Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Ors., AIR
(1978) SC 1807 falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3)
reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the
'Constitution'). It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to E
prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the
supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect
to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife,
children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The
aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. F
State of Gujarat and Ors., (2005) 2 Supreme 503).

6. Under the law the burden is placed in the first place upon the
wife to show that the means of her husband are sufficient. In the instant
case there is no dispute that the appellant has the requisite means. G
7. But there is an inseparable condition which has also to be satisfied
that the wife was unable to maintain herself. These two conditions are in
addition to the requirement that the husband must have neglected or
refused to maintain his wife. It to be established that the wife was unable
H
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 12 S.C.R.

A to maintain herself. The appellant has placed material to show that the
respondent-wife was earning some income. That is not sufficient to rule
out application of Section 125 Cr.P.C. It has to be established that with
the amount she earned the respondent-wife was able to maintain herself.
B 8. In an illustrative case where wife was surviving by begging, would
not amount to her ability to maintain herself. It can also be not said that
the wife has been capable of earning but she was not making an effort to
earn. Whether the deserted wife was unable to maintain herself, has to
be decided on the basis of the material placed on record. Where the
C personal income of the wife is insufficient she can claim maintenance under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. The test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain
herself in the way she was used to in the place of her husband. In
Bhagwan v. Kam/a Devi, AIR (1975) SC 83 it was observed that the
wife should be in a position to maintain standard ofliving which is neither
D luxurious nor penurious but what is consistent with status of a family.
The expression "unable to maintain herself' does not mean that the wife
must be absolutely destitute before she can apply for maintenance under
Section 125 Cr.P.C.
9. In the instant case the trial Court, the Revisional Court and the
E High Court have analysed the evidence and held that the respondent wife
was unable to maintain herself lbe conclusions are essentially factual and
they are not perverse. That being so there is no scope for interference in
this appeal which is dismissed.
F D.G. Appeal dismissed.