Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declined to grant maintenance to a woman under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, ruling that deliberate concealment of income, employment status, and financial investments disentitles a claimant from relief under the provision.
The Court upheld a Family Court order that had dismissed the maintenance petition after finding that the wife failed to make a truthful disclosure of her financial capacity.
Table of Contents
Purpose of Section 125 CrPC Reiterated
While examining the scope of Section 125 CrPC, Justice Alok Jain emphasized the legislative intent behind the provision, observing:
“Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been enacted with a specific purpose to protect women and children and to prevent vagrancy and destitution among them.”
The Court clarified that maintenance is not an automatic entitlement and must be supported by proof that the claimant is unable to maintain herself.
Suppression of Material Facts Proved Fatal
The High Court noted that the petitioner had withheld critical information relating to her income and employment while simultaneously alleging that her husband earned a substantial amount. The Court recorded:
“…in the present case, the petitioner has concealed her employment and claimed his husband is earning handsome amount, her conduct in suppressing relevant information from the Court and the fact that she is not only qualified but is capable of earning good money.”
Such conduct, the Court held, directly undermines the credibility of the claim under Section 125 CrPC.
Undisclosed Assets and Bank Accounts
During proceedings, it emerged that the petitioner possessed significant financial assets, including Kisan Vikas Patras and Public Provident Fund deposits exceeding ₹15 lakh. She also admitted to maintaining a salary account with Axis Bank, yet failed to disclose its balance or submit supporting documentation when directed by the court.
The High Court observed that the failure to transparently disclose these financial details indicated that the petitioner was not facing financial distress warranting maintenance.
ALSO READ: “Bombay HC Fines Litigant ₹50,000 for AI-Generated Fake Case Law“
Adoption Claim Found Unsubstantiated
The petitioner’s claim of having adopted her sister’s daughter was also scrutinised. The Court found that the assertion was unsupported by legal documentation or procedural compliance, further weakening her case.
Maintenance Cannot Be Misused: Court
Dismissing the appeal, the High Court reiterated that Section 125 CrPC is a social welfare provision aimed at preventing destitution, not a mechanism to secure unjust financial advantage through suppression of facts.
Finding no infirmity in the Family Court’s decision, the Court concluded that there was “no error in the impugned order” and refused to interfere.
