Ankit Saha Versus State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court)

Criminal Revision No. 2487 of 2024
Allahabad High Court
Decided on: 3 December 2025
Bench: Hon’ble Madan Pal Singh, J.

Head Note

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 125 — Maintenance to wife — Earning and financially independent wife — Suppression of material facts — Clean hands doctrine — Scope of judicial discretion.

Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC can be granted to a wife only if she is unable to maintain herself. Where the wife is well-educated, gainfully employed, earning a sufficient monthly income, and has no dependents or liabilities, she is not entitled to maintenance. Suppression of material facts regarding employment and income disentitles a litigant from equitable relief. Courts must not use Section 125 CrPC as a mechanism to equalise incomes between spouses. An applicant who approaches the court with false pleadings and concealment of facts cannot claim sympathy or relief.

Facts of the Case

The wife (Opposite Party No. 2) filed an application under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar, claiming maintenance on the ground that she was unemployed and had no source of income. By order dated 17 February 2024, the Family Court directed the husband to pay ₹5,000 per month as maintenance from the date of application.

Aggrieved, the husband filed a criminal revision before the Allahabad High Court, contending that the wife was a post-graduate, professionally qualified as a web designer, and employed as a Senior Sales Coordinator, earning approximately ₹36,000 per month, facts which were deliberately concealed by her in her pleadings and affidavit.

Issues for Determination

1. Whether a wife who is educated, employed, and earning a sufficient income is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

2. Whether suppression of material facts regarding income and employment disentitles a claimant from maintenance.

3. Whether maintenance can be awarded merely to balance or equalise the financial status of spouses.

Arguments

Revisionist (Husband)

• Section 125 CrPC applies only when the wife is unable to maintain herself.

• The wife knowingly misrepresented herself as unemployed and illiterate.

• She earns ₹36,000 per month and has no liabilities, while the husband supports aged parents.

• The Family Court failed to consider statutory requirements and liabilities of the husband.

State (AGA)

• Supported the Family Court’s reasoning to an extent but did not dispute the wife’s employment or income.

Decision

The Allahabad High Court allowed the criminal revision, set aside the Family Court’s order dated 17 February 2024, and held that the wife was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC

.

Ratio Decidendi

1. Inability to maintain oneself is a sine qua non for claiming maintenance under Section 125(1)(a) CrPC.

2. A wife who is earning sufficiently and has no dependents cannot be said to be unable to maintain herself.

3. Maintenance is not meant to equalise income or lifestyle between spouses.

4. Suppression of material facts, particularly regarding income and employment, vitiates the claim for maintenance.

5. A litigant must approach the court with clean hands, clean mind, and clean objective.

Observations of the Court

• The wife admitted during cross-examination that she was earning ₹36,000 per month.

• Her affidavit falsely stated that she was unemployed and had no income.

• Such conduct amounts to abuse of the judicial process.

• Courts must guard against misuse of welfare provisions intended to protect the genuinely destitute.

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment reinforces that:

• Section 125 CrPC is a social justice provision, not a tool for unjust enrichment.

• Financial independence of a spouse has a direct bearing on maintenance claims.

• Truthfulness and disclosure are fundamental to family law proceedings.

• Courts will not extend equitable relief to litigants who suppress facts or mislead the judiciary.

End Notes (Case Laws Cited)

1. Rekha Sharad Ushir v. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsanstha Ltd.,
   2025 SCC OnLine SC 641
   – Held that litigants who suppress material facts or make false statements are not entitled to relief; such cases deserve outright dismissal.

2. Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi,
   (1975) 2 SCC 386
   – Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is meant to prevent vagrancy and destitution.

3. Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal,
   2000 SCC OnLine MP 143
   – An educated and capable wife cannot sit idle and claim maintenance.

4. Shailja v. Khobbanna,
   (2018) 12 SCC 199
   – Mere earning capacity is not enough; however, actual income and ability to maintain oneself are decisive factors.