Orissa High Court Upholds Maintenance for Wife and Daughter, Says Unfair to Generalise Educated Wives as ‘Idle’ to Burden Husbands
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Orissa Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy has upheld a Family Court order requiring a husband to pay ₹5,000 per month each to his estranged wife and unmarried daughter. Deciding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the Court ruled that an unmarried daughter is entitled to maintenance until marriage if unable to support herself. Significantly, the Bench cautioned that without concrete proof of income or genuine earning prospects, it is unjust to assume educated wives deliberately avoid employment to claim support.
The case arose from a petition filed by the wife and daughter of the revision-petitioner under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking monthly maintenance. The Family Court, Bargarh, by its order dated 23 December 2019 in CMC No. 52-734 of 2012-16, directed the husband to pay Rs. 5,000 per month each to his wife and daughter, totalling Rs. 10,000 per month effective from 6 March 2012.
The petitioner and opposite party no.1 (wife) were married on 19 January 2001, and the couple had one daughter, opposite party no.2. Disputes arose between the parties, with allegations of further dowry demand leading to discord. The wife reported the matter to Mahila Sammittee, Bargarh. The husband subsequently filed MAT Case No. 06 of 2004 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur, seeking dissolution of marriage, which was decreed ex parte on 8 March 2007. The wife attempted to set aside this ex parte decree through proceedings under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, but her efforts failed procedurally.
Thereafter, the wife and daughter sought maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC, asserting that the petitioner was an advocate earning Rs. 20,000 monthly, in addition to Rs. 1,00,000 from a Hero Honda showroom and Rs. 50,000 from house rent. The petitioner, in his show cause, admitted the relationship but denied liability. He claimed the wife was well-qualified with an MA and LLB degree, earning through advocacy, LIC agency, and teaching, with substantial property in Bargarh. He further contended that she voluntarily deserted him and was thus disentitled to maintenance. He denied owning rental properties and argued that his dependents included his ailing mother and younger brothers, leaving him unable to pay the ordered maintenance.
The Family Court, Bargarh, after considering evidence, including the petitioner’s income tax returns, concluded that the husband was capable of maintaining his wife and daughter and granted the petition for maintenance. Challenging this, the husband approached the High Court under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 401 of CrPC.
Justice G. Satapathy, after hearing the parties, recorded several findings. On the plea of desertion, the Court noted that it was not disputed that the petitioner had remarried. The Court stated: “Since being not disputed about petitioner having married for the second time, it can be well presumed that the OP No.1 has an valid excuse in law to live separately from the revision-petitioner, which is in fact mandated in the explanation appended to Sub-Sec(3) of Sec. 125 of the CrPC.” The Court added that this plea of desertion could not benefit the petitioner.
Addressing the argument regarding maintenance of the major daughter, the Court observed: “True it is that Section 125 of CrPC does not have any express provision to grant maintenance to major unmarried daughter/child except when such child is by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself. Admittedly, OP No.2 is not a special child or a married daughter within the meaning of Sec. 125(1)(c) of the CrPC, but by virtue of Sec.20(3) for the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, an unmarried daughter is entitled to maintenance, provided she is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property.”
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata, noting: “It is manifest that the right of a minor girl for maintenance from parents after attaining majority till her marriage is recognized in Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the judgment/order passed by the Family Court which is based on a combined reading of Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.”
Regarding the wife’s income, the Court stated: “No document or evidence has been forthcoming or produced by the revision petitioner to establish that OP No.1 is having a particular income… in absence of any evidence with regard to engagement of the OPNo.1 as a counsel for different parties, it can be considered that she is not having sufficient means to maintain herself and her daughter in present day market cost.”
The Court also observed that the revision petitioner’s own income tax returns for 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 disclosed gross income exceeding Rs. 6 lakhs in one year, demonstrating capacity to pay. The Court recorded: “On analysis of the admitted facts on record together with the discussions as referred to above with regard to revision-petitioner filing Income Tax returns in the year 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, it can, therefore, be said that the revision petitioner has sufficient income and he is liable to provide maintenance to the present OPs being his first wife and daughter who have no sufficient means to maintain themselves.”
Justice Satapathy recorded: “It cannot be said that the grant of maintenance to OPs @ Rs.5,000/- per month each is neither exorbitant or on higher side, even after taking into consideration of the income of an Advocate of the stature of OP No.1 who is considered to be not a serious practitioner and, therefore, the impugned order calls for no interference by this Court.”
“In the result, the revision stands dismissed on contest, but in the circumstance, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 23.12.2019 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bargarh in CMC No. 52-734 of 2012-16 is hereby confirmed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. B.P.B. Bahali, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. A. Pradhan, Advocate
Case Title: G. Debendra Rao v. G. Puspa Prabha Rao & Another
Case Number: RPFAM No. 18 of 2021
Bench: Justice Gourishankar Satapathy
