Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC: “May Earn” vs “Is Earning”—Qualified Wife Entitled Absent Proof of Income; Streedhan Not a Defence; Modification under BNSS §145

1) Introduction

The decision in Saurabh Malviya v. Apurva Malviya (2026 MPHC-IND 7791), decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) on 23-03-2026, arises from a criminal revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

The husband (petitioner) challenged the Family Court’s order dated 24.06.2025 in MJCR No.78/2023 awarding the wife (respondent) maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973, payable from the date of application (03.04.2023).

The core dispute was whether the wife—described by the husband as highly educated and capable of earning—was disentitled to maintenance, and whether the Family Court’s assessment of the husband’s means and the wife’s need warranted interference in revision.

2) Summary of the Judgment

  • The High Court dismissed the husband’s criminal revision and affirmed the Family Court’s award of Rs.40,000/- per month maintenance to the wife from 03.04.2023.
  • The Court held that:
    • “Streedhan” is the absolute property of a woman; an argument that streedhan is with the wife does not defeat her maintenance claim.
    • There is a legal and factual distinction between a wife who “may earn” (capacity) and one who “is earning” (actual income); absent evidence of actual earnings, maintenance can be granted.
    • The husband, being in a well-paid profession (Assistant Manager at Genpact, having earlier worked in the U.K.), is expected to maintain the wife consistent with the standard of living associated with his position.
  • The Court also clarified that the husband may seek modification if circumstances change, specifically mentioning liberty to approach the Family Court under Section 145 of BNSS, 2023.

3) Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The judgment does not cite any prior case law by title. The Court’s reasoning is instead anchored in well-settled principles commonly applied in Section 125 proceedings—particularly concerning streedhan and the need to distinguish earning capacity from actual earnings.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

  1. Scope of revisional interference:

    The High Court treated the Family Court’s maintenance determination as primarily a fact-based assessment of evidence. Finding no perversity warranting revisional correction, it declined to interfere.

  2. Failed mutual consent divorce proceedings provide no advantage:

    The Court considered documents (Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/7) showing that proceedings to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent “could not be materialized” and were dismissed on 03.02.2023. The husband was held not entitled to derive any benefit from that failed attempt (including alleged undertakings to withdraw proceedings).

  3. Streedhan as absolute property—no set-off against maintenance:

    The Court categorically stated: “Streedhan” is an absolute property of a woman, and therefore a plea that streedhan is with the wife cannot be used to resist maintenance. This underscores that maintenance under Section 125 addresses ongoing support obligations, not distribution/retention of the wife’s proprietary articles.

  4. “May earn” vs “is earning”—capacity is not proof of income:

    A central holding is the distinction between potential earning capacity and actual earning. The husband asserted the wife was qualified (engineering graduate, freelancer/artist) and earning; the Court held that there was no evidence that the wife is earning. Hence, mere qualification or capability does not automatically disentitle a wife to maintenance—particularly when she discontinued work due to marital obligations/compulsions.

  5. Husband’s means and evidentiary gaps:

    The Court noted the husband’s own admissions about employment (Assistant Manager at Genpact; earlier work in the U.K.) and found significant that, while he denied a higher package, he did not adduce any documentary evidence regarding his salary. The Court also recorded admissions regarding ownership of lodges and facts about property/flat being in the wife’s name. In this evidentiary posture, the Family Court’s conclusion on capacity and standard of living was treated as justified.

  6. Quantum linked to standard of living:

    The High Court upheld Rs.40,000/- per month as “proportionate to the standard” expected from a husband holding such employment credentials. The underlying normative principle is that maintenance is not subsistence alone; it is also tethered to the matrimonial standard of living reasonably expected from the husband’s social and economic position.

  7. Future modification preserved (BNSS reference):

    While upholding the order, the Court balanced equities by expressly granting liberty to seek modification if the wife obtains employment or circumstances change, pointing to Section 145 of BNSS, 2023 as the procedural route.

3.3 Impact

  • Reinforces evidentiary discipline in “wife is earning” defences: Parties resisting maintenance on the ground of the wife’s employment must bring credible proof of actual income, not merely educational qualifications or alleged earning potential.
  • Limits misuse of streedhan arguments: By stating streedhan is the woman’s absolute property, the judgment discourages attempts to treat streedhan possession as a substitute for, or bar to, Section 125 maintenance.
  • Standard-of-living approach affirmed: Courts may uphold amounts aligned with the husband’s professional standing even if the husband claims limited savings, especially where salary/means documentation is withheld.
  • Signals continuity into the BNSS regime: The express reference to BNSS for modification indicates courts will facilitate transition pathways for post-order adjustments based on changed circumstances.

4) Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 (maintenance)
A quick, summary remedy to prevent destitution by ordering monthly support to a पत्नी/पत्नी (wife) who cannot maintain herself, subject to statutory conditions.
Criminal Revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984
A supervisory challenge to check legality/propriety of a Family Court order; it is not a full re-trial. High Courts typically interfere only when findings are perverse or legally untenable.
Streedhan
Property given to a woman before/during marriage (jewellery, gifts, etc.). The judgment reiterates it is her absolute property, not the husband’s asset and not a basis to deny maintenance.
“May earn” vs “is earning”
“May earn” refers to capability (education/skills). “Is earning” requires proof of actual present income. Maintenance can be granted when capability is shown but actual income is not proved.
Modification of maintenance (BNSS reference)
Maintenance is not frozen forever; if circumstances materially change (e.g., wife gets a job), a party can seek alteration/modification before the competent court under the applicable procedural law.

5) Conclusion

Saurabh Malviya v. Apurva Malviya strengthens three practical rules in Section 125 adjudication: (i) streedhan does not negate maintenance, (ii) a wife’s qualification or earning capacity is not equivalent to proof of present earnings, and (iii) maintenance quantum may legitimately reflect the husband’s professional standard of living, especially where he fails to produce clear income proof. The Court’s grant of liberty to seek modification under BNSS, 2023 also preserves fairness by keeping the order adaptable to future changes in circumstances.