Isabella Mariam

The Madras High Court at Madurai, Single Bench of Justice L. Victoria Gowri, recently declined to grant maintenance to a wife and her daughters under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, holding that the husband, a senior citizen suffering from paralysis, could not be further burdened with financial obligations. The Court observed that the husband had been neglected by his family despite his medical condition and held that he was also entitled to maintenance and care under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Justice Gowri held that the Court must maintain a balance between the wife’s right to maintenance and the husband’s statutory right to protection.

The petitioners, consisting of a wife and her two daughters, sought monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000 from the respondent under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondent was the husband of the first petitioner and father of the other two petitioners. The wife claimed that the respondent had been employed in a public limited company and had retired after drawing a salary of Rs.17,000 per month. She stated that he had received about Rs.15 lakh as retirement benefits and owned immovable properties, but had not provided any financial assistance, including for their daughter’s marriage or medical expenses.

Also Read: Land Acquisition Can’t Be Challenged After Accepting Compensation: Supreme Court Sets Aside Calcutta High Court Order Restoring Singur Land to Private Firm

The respondent denied the allegations and asserted that he was 65 years old, had suffered a paralytic attack, and required regular medical treatment costing around Rs.5,000 per month. He contended that he was living in financial distress, while the petitioners were capable of maintaining themselves. He also stated that his son was earning Rs.25,000 per month and was contributing to the household expenses. The respondent further pointed out that the first petitioner had filed multiple civil suits concerning his properties and had prevented him from accessing his retirement benefits.

During the proceedings, the first petitioner was examined as a witness and produced two exhibits, while the respondent and another witness were examined for the defence, producing three documents. Based on the evidence, the trial court concluded that the wife could maintain herself and that the respondent, being a senior citizen in poor health, lacked the financial means to pay maintenance. The court dismissed the petition, leading to the present revision challenge before the High Court

The Court recorded that “it is well-settled that under Section 125 Cr.P.C., a wife, who is unable to maintain herself, is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband. The object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support their dependents to do so.” Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgement in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316, the Court quoted, “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 and who have a moral claim to support.”

Justice Gowri noted 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 learned Magistrate, the Court recorded, had properly evaluated the evidence and concluded that Menaka was capable of sustaining herself while the respondent, a senior citizen suffering from paralysis, was in financial hardship.

The Court further observed that “Courts cannot ignore the balance of obligations under both statutes – while a wife has rights under Section 125 Cr.P.C., a senior citizen also has a statutory right to maintenance and medical care under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.” The judgment stated the need to consider the respondent’s health condition and limited income while determining his liability to provide maintenance.

It was recorded that the respondent, upon voluntary retirement, was drawing a salary of Rs.17,000/- per month and had received approximately Rs.3,00,000/- in retirement benefits. The Court held that “the same coupled with the pension he is receiving would suffice for his maintenance.”

Also Read: Grant of Gun Licence a Privilege, but Renewal a Right Unless Valid Grounds for Refusal Exist: Madras High Court

The Court stated that “the learned Trial Court has rightly concluded that the first petitioner is able to sustain herself with the support available and the respondent, being a senior citizen with serious medical ailments, cannot be burdened with the additional responsibility of paying maintenance.”

Justice Gowri stated that “In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court has passed a reasoned order after due appreciation of evidence and no interference is warranted. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case fails and the same is dismissed. No Costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. P.R. Prithiviraj
For the Respondents: Mr. Karuppasamy Pandian for Mr. S. Srinivasa Raghavan

Case Title: Menaka and Others v. Murugan
Case Number: Crl.R.C. (MD) No.417 of 2024
Bench: Justice L. Victoria Gowri