In a petition filed before the Sonipat Family Court under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), seeking maintenance, Justice Kuldeep Singh partly allowed the petition with costs, while denying maintenance to the wife and allowing monthly maintenance to the daughter by her father.
Petitioner 1 (wife) got married to the respondent (husband) in 2016 and gave birth to petitioner 2 (girl child). At the time of the marriage, the wife was working as a resource person in the Samagra Siksha Abhiyan in Delhi, and the husband was working as a consultant at Tata Consultancy Services. After the wedding was fixed, the husband and his parents started demanding dowry as a precondition. The husband’s father purchased various articles and handed over a bill of Rs. 2,74,000/-. Upon demand, the wife’s father handed over a cheque for Rs. 4,00,000/- to the husband’s father to purchase a car.
The wife was harassed by her in-laws right from the day of marriage, either for dowry or for her complete salary. After 6 months, the husband went to the USA and pressured the wife to transfer Rs. 4,00,000/- for purchasing a flat. Even after she did so, neither the husband nor his family was happy.
In December 2016, the wife went to the USA, where, after some time, the husband started taunting her as his family members kept instigating him over the phone. The wife asserted that her in-laws constantly tried to create friction in her relationship with the husband. In September 2019, the wife gave birth to a girl child in the USA, after which, her in-laws started commenting on her for giving birth to a girl. After returning to India in 2020, she fell sick, but was not taken to any doctor and was asked to go to her maternal home.
After recovering, the wife wished to return to her matrimonial home, but her in-laws refused to bring her back by saying that her husband had rejected her. Thereafter, the wife tried to communicate with the husband, but the conversation ended in arguments, and WhatsApp messages showed that the husband wanted to desert her by any means. Contending that the husband had refused to maintain her and the child, the wife sought Rs. 2.50 lakhs per month as maintenance, as well as for litigation expenses.
The Court noted that the wife had already filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), and a criminal case under Section 498-A of IPC, whereas the husband had filed a divorce petition as well as a petition to seek the daughter’s custody. It was noted that the wife had a Master’s degree in Economics, M.Sc in Maths, and a Master’s in Education. It was also noted that the wife had a job when she filed the present petition, but had left it to move to the USA to complete her Master’s degree in Quantitative Finance at the University of Texas.
The Court noted that even after completing her Master’s, the wife had not returned to India. It was said that the wife had strong financial support from her family since she had not sought maintenance earlier. The Court stated that Section 125 does not provide a lifelong subsidy or equalize lifestyle when the wife is well qualified.
The Court stated that the wife had prior job experience, held three master’s degrees from India and one from the US, and had never left her job to look after the needs of the family. Comparing the status of both parties, the Court found that the wife was on a higher pedestal. It was said that in foreign countries, even students work, and that since the wife had so many degrees, it could not be expected that she would sit idle in the USA during her course.
The Court said it seemed that the wife had intentionally moved to the USA to claim maintenance from the husband’s earnings, as she remained there even after her study period ended. The Court said that she wanted the money for her studies abroad, which was not possible, as she was well-qualified and pursued her fourth degree only as an ambition, not as a need.
Thus, the Court held that the wife was not entitled to maintenance and declined her claim while allowing the claim of the daughter to receive Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance from her father from the date of institution of the petition till 09-03-2026 and Rs. 15,000/- per month from 10-03-2026 till the date of her majority. While partly allowing the petition with costs, the husband was directed to pay the maintenance amount due till 09-03-2026 within three months and to pay the future maintenance by the first week of every month.
Appearances:
For Petitioners – Mr. Parveen Malik, Mr. Rohit Kumar on behalf of Mr. Sumit Saroha
For Respondent – Mr. Satish Chander, Mr. Atul Jain
