The Madras High Court has provided relief to a senior citizen husband in a maintenance case where his wife filed a case asking for a Rs 30,000 monthly maintenance. The Court noted that the couple has three children, one son and two daughters. One daughter is already married, and the son is also earning Rs 25,000 per month. Justice Victoria Gowri ordered a review of the revision criminal case and, after evaluating provisions of the Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for wife’s maintenance, and Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act for senior citizens maintenance, maintained the trial court decision of not burdening the husband with financial obligations.
It started with a case the wife filed against her husband for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The trial court dismissed her petition.
The wife then sought relief from the High Court. She argued that the husband was earning Rs 17,000 monthly at the time of retirement. He received Rs 15 lakh under retirement benefits and holds immovable assets also. But he doesn’t want to partake of any of it, and he has not even contributed anything for their daughter’s marriage. She argued that she cannot maintain herself and therefore, the husband should be ordered to pay her the maintenance.
The husband’s counsel argued that one of the daughters was already married and the son is now a major and earning Rs 25,000 monthly. He argued that he has been facing multiple cases against him related to the immovable property. Due to them, his retirement benefits have also not been paid in full. The counsel further argued that the husband was 65 years old and suffered a paralytic attack, had been bedridden, and required Rs 5,000 per month for medical expenses.
His other argument was that his family, including his wife and son, neglected him, and he is struggling to defend the cases filed against him by them.
The Court noted that under Section 125 CrPC, a wife is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband if she is unable to maintain herself. The Court emphasised that the Section is to prevent “destitution and vagrancy” by ensuring support for them. However, it also said that the “entitlement of the wife is subject to proof of neglect or refusal on the part of the husband and also dependent upon his financial capacity.”
The Court found the Trial Court’s order reasonable, which requires no interference, and dismissed he wife’s appeal.
