Real Earning Capacity Prevails Over Paper Income in Section 125 Maintenance Claims
1. Introduction
The Gujarat High Court in VASANTBHAI PREMJIBHAI VEKARIYA v. STATE OF GUJARAT
examined the scope of revisional interference with an order of maintenance passed under
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The husband challenged the order of
the Principal Judge, Family Court, Anand directing him to pay Rs.50,000 per month to his wife
from the date of the maintenance application, i.e. 12.03.2019.
The dispute arose out of a long matrimonial relationship. The parties married in 1995 and had a son,
who had attained majority and was studying abroad. The wife alleged neglect, harassment and lack of
financial support. She also suffered from cancer and required continuing medical care. The husband,
on the other hand, claimed business losses, closure of distributorship, reduced income and repayment
liabilities.
The central issue before the High Court was whether the Family Court had committed any illegality,
perversity or jurisdictional error in awarding Rs.50,000 per month as maintenance, particularly when
the husband relied upon income-tax returns showing a much lower income.
2. Summary of the Judgment
Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar dismissed the husband’s criminal revision application and confirmed the
Family Court’s order awarding Rs.50,000 per month to the wife.
- The marital relationship was undisputed.
- The wife had no proved independent source of income.
- Her educational qualification or theoretical capacity to earn was not enough to deny maintenance.
- The husband’s income-tax returns were not treated as conclusive proof of his real income.
- The Court considered his business background, Canon distributorship, foreign travel, investments,
bank transactions, loans, insurance, and other financial indicators.
- The wife’s cancer treatment and medical expenses were relevant factors in determining maintenance.
- The plea of recession or closure of business, without convincing evidence, could not absolve an
able-bodied husband from his legal and moral duty to maintain his wife.
- The High Court held that revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC is limited and
cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence unless the lower court’s finding is perverse or illegal.
Accordingly, the revision was dismissed, the interim relief was vacated, and connected applications
were disposed of.
3. Analysis
A. Precedents Cited
This case was relied upon for the principle that a wife’s mere capacity to earn is not the same as
actual earning. The High Court used this authority to reject the husband’s argument that because the
wife held qualifications in Home Science and Fashion Designing, she should be treated as capable of
maintaining herself.
2. Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. v. Anil Kachwaha
This precedent reinforces that maintenance cannot be denied merely because the wife is educated.
The relevant inquiry is whether she actually has sufficient independent income to maintain herself
according to the standard of life she enjoyed in the matrimonial home.
3. Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai
The Court quoted the principle that “unable to maintain herself” does not mean that the wife must be
absolutely destitute. A wife is entitled to live in a manner consistent with the status of the family,
neither luxurious nor penurious. This case directly supported the wife’s claim.
This precedent was important in dealing with the husband’s reliance on income-tax returns. The High
Court noted that income-tax returns do not always give an accurate picture of real income,
particularly in matrimonial disputes where parties may understate income to avoid maintenance
liability.
The Gujarat High Court referred to this decision for the broader proposition that a husband cannot
escape his legal and ethical duty to maintain his wife and children. The decision strengthens the
view that non-payment or avoidance of maintenance obligations is viewed seriously.
This case was cited for the principle that the duty of a husband to maintain his wife is sacrosanct.
An able-bodied husband is expected to earn, even by physical labour if necessary, unless he proves a
legally acceptable inability.
The judgment refers to this authority for the rule that a husband cannot avoid maintenance by merely
pleading lack of income. If he is physically capable and has earning potential, the law expects him
to discharge his obligation towards his wife and children.
This leading decision was relied upon for determining maintenance by considering the parties’
financial status, standard of living, inflation and cost of living. The High Court applied this
approach while upholding the award of Rs.50,000 per month.
This case, referred to through Rajnesh v. Neha & Ors., emphasizes that the husband’s plea of no
income does not automatically absolve him of his moral and legal duty if he is able-bodied and
qualified.
The Court used this precedent to reject the husband’s contention that loan repayment liabilities
should reduce or defeat the wife’s maintenance claim. Personal liabilities cannot override the
statutory duty to maintain the spouse.
11. Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan
This decision was cited for the proposition that reduction or decrease in income is not by itself a
ground to deny maintenance. The husband’s obligation to maintain his wife stands on a higher
pedestal.
This case was relied upon to explain the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction. The High Court
cannot substitute its own view on facts unless the lower court’s finding is perverse, arbitrary or
legally unsustainable.
13. Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhatisgarh
This precedent further clarified that revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC exists
to correct patent defects, jurisdictional errors or serious legal irregularities. It is not an
appeal on facts.
B. Legal Reasoning
The High Court’s reasoning proceeded on three major foundations: realistic assessment of income,
the husband’s continuing obligation, and restraint in revisional jurisdiction.
First, the Court refused to rely solely on the husband’s income-tax returns. Although he claimed his
income was around Rs.2 lakh per year, the Court found several circumstances inconsistent with such
a low income: his business as proprietor of Rutumn Enterprise, Canon distributorship, substantial
banking activity, foreign travel, loans, insurance, mutual fund investments, and business-related
claims involving large amounts.
Secondly, the Court emphasized that the wife’s medical condition was a relevant and serious factor.
She was suffering from cancer and had withdrawn mutual fund amounts for treatment. Maintenance under
Section 125 CrPC is a beneficial remedy designed to prevent destitution and social hardship.
Thirdly, the Court held that the Family Court had properly appreciated the evidence. Since the
finding was not perverse, illegal or arbitrary, the High Court could not interfere merely because
another view was possible.
C. Impact of the Judgment
This judgment strengthens the practical and welfare-oriented approach to maintenance law. Its
important implications are:
- Income-tax returns are not conclusive: Courts may examine lifestyle, business activity,
assets, bank transactions and earning capacity.
- Educational qualification is not enough: A wife cannot be denied maintenance merely because
she is educated or theoretically capable of earning.
- Medical needs matter: Serious illness, such as cancer, can justify a higher maintenance
amount.
- Able-bodied husbands carry a strong obligation: Claimed recession or business loss must be
proved through reliable evidence.
- Revisional courts will not re-try maintenance disputes: Unless there is perversity or
patent illegality, factual findings of the Family Court will stand.
4. Complex Concepts Simplified
Section 125 CrPC
Section 125 CrPC provides a quick remedy for wives, children and parents who are unable to maintain
themselves. It is meant to prevent neglect and destitution, not to decide matrimonial fault in detail.
“Unable to Maintain Herself”
This does not mean the wife must be starving or completely penniless. It means she lacks sufficient
income to live with reasonable dignity according to the family’s status.
Able-Bodied Husband Principle
If a husband is physically and mentally capable of working, courts presume that he has an obligation
to earn and maintain his wife. He cannot avoid maintenance merely by saying that business is poor.
Revisional Jurisdiction
A revision is not a full appeal. The High Court checks whether the lower court committed a serious
legal error, acted without jurisdiction, or reached a perverse conclusion. It normally does not
reassess all evidence afresh.
Adverse Inference
If a party withholds relevant financial information or gives an incomplete picture of income, the
Court may infer that the true facts would have gone against that party.
5. Conclusion
The Gujarat High Court affirmed that maintenance law must be applied realistically and humanely.
A husband cannot defeat a wife’s claim by relying only on low income-tax returns, alleged recession
or loan liabilities when other evidence indicates earning capacity and financial strength.
The judgment is significant because it protects the remedial purpose of Section 125 CrPC, especially
where the wife is ill and financially dependent. It also reinforces that revisional courts should not
interfere with well-reasoned maintenance orders unless there is clear perversity or illegality.