Court Rules Wife's Right to Maintenance Continues During Marriage Subsistence; Delay and Alleged Desertion Insufficient to Deny Interim Support
In a significant judgment delivered on September 8, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Madhu Jain, dismissed the revision petition filed by Bhim Singh Rana challenging the Family Court's order directing him to pay ad-interim maintenance of Rs.15,000 per month to his wife, Shardha Rana. The case, arising out of a long-standing matrimonial dispute, underscores the legal position that a wife's right to maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) subsists during the marriage, irrespective of prolonged separation or allegations of desertion, unless conclusively proved otherwise.
The parties were married in April 1975 according to Hindu rites and have three children, all now major and independently settled. The respondent wife alleged that in March 1985, the petitioner assaulted her and drove her out of the matrimonial home, compelling her to shift to her parental home and later to Delhi in search of employment. She claimed she had no sufficient independent income and sought maintenance of Rs.40,000 per month. The petitioner, a retired Army personnel receiving pension, contended that the wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home in 1985 and had been living separately for over four decades without seeking maintenance, thus challenging the claim on grounds of delay and desertion.
The Family Court, after considering pleadings and affidavits, granted ad-interim maintenance at Rs.15,000 per month, noting the petitioner's capacity to pay and the respondent's lack of steady income. The petitioner challenged this order before the Delhi High Court, arguing that the Family Court's decision was non-speaking, mechanical, and failed to consider his objections including delay, desertion, and discrepancies in the respondent's affidavits regarding employment and income.
The High Court, however, upheld the Family Court's order emphasizing that the mere fact of prolonged separation does not extinguish the wife's right to maintenance during the subsistence of marriage where no divorce decree exists. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021), the Court reiterated that Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings are summary in nature aimed at providing immediate relief to a wife unable to maintain herself. The Court held that disputed questions such as desertion or voluntary separation require detailed evidence and cannot be conclusively decided at the interlocutory stage of ad-interim maintenance.
Further, the Court clarified that delay in seeking maintenance is not a bar to the claim since maintenance is a continuing obligation, and the effect of delay must be assessed along with explanations and other material facts. The inconsistencies in the respondent's affidavits and pleadings about employment status were noted but deemed insufficient to deny interim maintenance without a full inquiry.
The Court directed that the petitioner's pension and other financial details could be examined by the Family Court for determining the final quantum of maintenance and reiterated that the ad-interim amount granted was subject to modification upon full disclosure of financials. The judgment also recognized that except in cases where the wife is living in adultery, refuses to live without sufficient reason, or parties live separately by mutual consent (exceptions under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.), the wife is entitled to maintenance.
The revision petition and pending applications were dismissed, with instructions to the Family Court to proceed with the matter considering all affidavits, objections, and evidence from both parties to determine the final maintenance amount.
This judgment reaffirms the protective scope of Section 125 Cr.P.C., ensuring financial support for wives even in complex and prolonged matrimonial separations, while balancing the need for proper adjudication of disputed facts in due course.
Bottom Line:
Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Wife's claim for maintenance cannot be denied solely on the basis of prolonged separation or alleged desertion without sufficient evidence or prima facie findings, and an ad-interim maintenance order can be modified during the proceedings based on further evidence.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.)
Bhim Singh Rana v. Shardha Rana, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2979332
