One of the most debated questions in matrimonial law is whether a divorced wife can claim maintenance from her former husband. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) (Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is a secular provision aimed at preventing destitution and vagrancy by ensuring that certain persons, including wives (even divorced), are not left without financial support. The recent Delhi High Court judgment in Rajeev Bhardwaj v. Dipti Bhardwaj (CRL.REV.P. 291/2024) revisits and reaffirms this legal principle.
This article analyses the judgment in detail and explores the legal position regarding the rights of a divorced wife to claim maintenance, the factors courts consider in determining maintenance, and the broader implications for matrimonial disputes in India.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a petition under Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 of BNSS) filed by Dipti Bhardwaj, seeking maintenance from her husband, Rajeev Bhardwaj. The couple was married in 1995 and had two children. Due to alleged acts of cruelty, the wife was forced to separate from her husband, and later, a decree of divorce was passed during the pendency of the maintenance proceedings.
The Family Court at Rohini, Delhi, allowed the wife’s petition and awarded her maintenance of ₹15,000 per month, with a 10% increase every two years. The husband challenged this order before the High Court, contending that he had neither neglected his wife nor was the quantum of maintenance reasonable.
Section 125 CrPC (Now Section 144 BNSS): Right to Maintenance
Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS) allows a wife who is unable to maintain herself to claim maintenance from her husband if he has sufficient means but refuses or neglects to maintain her. The section is premised on a social welfare approach rather than strict personal law.
Key Issues Before the High Court
The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, examined several key issues:
- Whether the wife was entitled to maintenance after divorce.
- Whether the Family Court had erred in appreciating evidence.
- Whether the amount awarded was excessive or arbitrary.
- Whether the directive to increase the amount periodically was justifiable.
Findings of the Family Court
The Family Court held that:
- The respondent-wife was not earning and had no independent source of income.
- The husband was a government employee (driver at DTC) with a monthly salary exceeding ₹65,000.
- The husband failed to substantiate claims of high personal expenses or health issues.
- The allegations of cruelty were sufficiently supported by the wife’s testimony and that of her mother.
- The wife had not claimed any alimony during divorce proceedings and was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS).
The Court also considered the lifestyle and reasonable needs of the wife and awarded maintenance accordingly.
Observations of the High Court
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma upheld the findings of the Family Court and made several notable observations:
1. Right of Divorced Wife under Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS)
The Court reaffirmed that a divorced woman is legally entitled to claim maintenance if she is unable to maintain herself. The fact that the marriage had been dissolved did not negate the husband’s statutory obligation to provide financial support under CrPC (BNSS).
2. Lack of Evidence to Rebut Cruelty Allegations
The Court noted that the husband failed to rebut the wife’s consistent narrative of cruelty. There was no attempt made to seek restitution of conjugal rights, and the husband had chosen to live separately.
3. Financial Assessment
- The husband’s take-home salary was ₹52,000 to ₹51,945 per month.
- He claimed expenses like rent and car EMI but did not submit any proof such as receipts or agreements.
- The Court found the claim of high personal expenses unsubstantiated.
- The husband had no other dependents and was able-bodied.
4. Wife’s Inability to Maintain Herself
The wife was only 12th pass, unemployed, and dependent on her parents. She had two children (now majors) but received no support from the husband, who had moved out of the matrimonial home.
5. Quantum of Maintenance
The Court held that ₹15,000 per month was reasonable, considering:
- The wife’s needs (food, clothing, healthcare, social obligations).
- The husband’s income and obligations.
- The absence of any alimony or separate claim under matrimonial law.
6. Periodic Enhancement
The 10% increase in maintenance every two years was upheld, with the Court noting the rising cost of living and inflation.
Legal Principles Reaffirmed
This judgment reinforces several key principles:
- A divorced wife has a legal right to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS) if she is unable to maintain herself and has not remarried.
- The husband’s obligation does not end with divorce, unless the wife has received sufficient alimony or is financially independent.
- Financial capacity and standard of living are important factors in determining the amount of maintenance.
- Courts are justified in periodic enhancement of maintenance, considering economic realities.
- Failure to produce evidence of liabilities weakens the husband’s defence.
Criticism and Limitations
The Court did point out that the wife had not explained why she did not claim maintenance from her adult son or seek alimony during divorce. However, this omission did not override her statutory rights under CrPC or BNSS, especially given her dependency and the husband’s financial strength.
Broader Implications
The judgment carries wider significance in matrimonial and criminal jurisprudence:
- It ensures that women are not rendered destitute post-divorce, especially in cases where they have sacrificed careers for marriage or child-rearing.
- It sets a precedent for reasonable but fair financial support, discouraging token maintenance.
- It emphasizes the need for documentary evidence in maintenance cases, helping courts balance rights and obligations.
- The ruling serves as a deterrent against evasive litigation tactics by non-compliant spouses.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s ruling in Rajeev Bhardwaj v. Dipti Bhardwaj underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rights of divorced women under Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS). It emphasizes that maintenance is not a charitable dispensation but a legal duty grounded in social welfare and economic justice.
The case clarifies that divorce does not absolve responsibility, especially when the woman remains economically vulnerable. Courts will look at the real income, obligations, and credibility of claims rather than unverified assertions.
This judgment serves as a strong reminder that maintenance law must be interpreted in light of contemporary socio-economic realities, reinforcing the right of every woman to live with dignity—before and after divorce.