Ranchi: In a significant judgment that reinforces the social welfare nature of maintenance laws in India, the Jharkhand High Court has held that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is designed to "ameliorate the agony and financial suffering" of women. The Court clarified that "sustenance" for a wife does not mean mere survival or living like an "unperson," but rather living with the same dignity and status she enjoyed while residing with her husband.

While making these strong observations, Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi also expressed deep concern over the procedural delays in family courts, pointing out a case that took nearly eight years to reach a conclusion despite being "summary" in nature.

The legal battle involved a couple who were married in June 1985 in Patna. At the time of the marriage, the husband was an MBBS intern who later became a specialist MD in Medicine. The wife, on her part, completed her B.Ed. after the marriage. The couple’s life took them to Saudi Arabia, where they lived for approximately six years.

However, the marriage eventually hit rocky waters. According to the wife’s testimony, she was forced to leave her matrimonial home in 2006 following repeated disputes and degrading remarks. She alleged that her husband, now a well-known neuro-physician in Patna running his own clinic, earns a substantial income exceeding ₹3 lakh per month.

In 2015, the wife filed for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. In 2023—eight years later—the Family Court in Ranchi awarded her a consolidated maintenance amount of ₹24,000 per month. Dissatisfied with this amount, the wife approached the High Court seeking an enhancement to ₹60,000, while the husband filed a cross-appeal to challenge the maintenance order entirely.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, while hearing the revisions, revisited the core philosophy behind Section 125 CrPC. The Court noted that this provision is a measure of "social justice" enacted specifically to protect women and children from vagrancy and destitution.

The Court held:

"Section 125 CrPC was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, and financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home... so that she can sustain herself and also her children. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal or feel like an unperson thrown away from grace."

The Bench emphasized that the "status and strata" of the parties are crucial. If a husband enjoys a high standard of living, the law mandates that his wife is entitled to live in a similar manner. The Court remarked that a husband cannot take "subterfuges" or legal excuses to deprive his wife of a life of dignity.

A key highlight of the judgment was the Court’s stance on the husband’s responsibility. The Court reiterated the established legal principle that it is the "sacrosanct duty" of a husband to provide financial support to his wife.

The Court went a step further, stating that this obligation remains even if the husband does not have a steady job or a high-profile profession. As long as the husband is "able-bodied," he is legally bound to earn—even through physical labor if necessary—to maintain his wife. In this specific case, since the husband was a highly qualified doctor, his capacity to pay was never in doubt.

One of the most striking parts of the judgment was the High Court’s critique of the lower court’s timeline. The maintenance petition was filed in 2015 but was only decided in 2023.

The Court found it "strange" and "unfortunate" that a proceeding intended to be "summary" (quick and simplified) took nearly a decade. Justice Dwivedi noted that the Family Court appeared to have conducted the proceedings without being "alive to the objects and reasons" of the Family Courts Act.

Legal experts often point out that "justice delayed is justice denied" in maintenance cases, as the woman requires immediate financial support for daily survival, not a lump sum after a decade of struggle.

Despite the strong words in favor of the wife’s rights, the High Court ultimately decided not to increase the maintenance amount beyond the ₹24,000 awarded by the Family Court.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a balanced view of the husband’s other financial responsibilities:

Support for Children: The husband had consistently taken care of the education and upbringing of both daughters.
Marriage Expenses: He had borne the entire cost of the elder daughter's marriage and was responsible for the upcoming marriage of the younger daughter.
Previous Alimony: The husband had already deposited ₹20 lakh as permanent alimony following a separate legal proceeding, which the wife had notably not yet withdrawn.

The Court concluded that given these heavy financial outlays and the fact that the husband was fulfilling his duties toward his children, the current maintenance amount was justified and did not require an upward revision.

The Jharkhand High Court's decision in Chetna Kumar v. Dr. Prasoon Kumar serves as a vital reminder for both litigants and the lower judiciary. On one hand, it reaffirms that maintenance is not a "pittance" but a right to live with dignity. On the other hand, it highlights the desperate need for Family Courts to expedite cases to fulfill the "summary" nature of the law.

For husbands, the message is clear: the duty to maintain is unavoidable. For wives, the judgment clarifies that while the standard of living must be maintained, the court will also consider the overall financial conduct and responsibilities of the husband before granting enhancements.

Case Title: Chetna Kumar v. Dr. Prasoon Kumar
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 1036 of 2023
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi