Section 125 CrPC — Wife and Children's Maintenance · 17 June 2026
Smt. Reenu v. State of U.P.: Allahabad High Court Holds Support From a Wife's Parents Does Not Replace the Husband's Duty to Maintain, Raises Maintenance
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad · 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 337; Criminal Revision No. 1370 of 2024
Download the full judgment (PDF)
Enter your name and WhatsApp number to get the download link. We'll also let you know on WhatsApp if we can help with this case — filing, tracking, or anything else — no obligation either way.
We use this only to send the link and to follow up about this case. See our privacy policy.
The wife said her husband, a retired Army man, stopped maintaining marital relations, later told her he had married another woman, and in January 2020 assaulted her and expelled her and the children from the home, since when she lived at her parents' house with no income of her own. The husband said she left without sufficient cause and was in illicit relationships with other people, that ₹11,303 a month was deducted from his Army salary for his wife and children until he retired in November 2020, and that he now receives a pension of about ₹21,025. The Family Court disbelieved the wife because she could not prove specific incidents of dowry demand, assault or a second marriage, held both sides' allegations unproven, found she was living apart without sufficient cause, refused her maintenance, and awarded ₹3,000 a month to each child.
Justice Garima Prashad held that Section 125 CrPC proceedings do not require strict proof of cruelty as in a criminal trial or contested matrimonial case. The admitted facts, serious discord, the wife and children living separately, and the husband's admission that he paid nothing after November 2020, showed she was not living apart without cause and was neglected. The husband's allegation of adultery was unsupported by any independent witness or document, and the Section 125(4) bar applies only if she is proved to be living in adultery. The Court held that an able-bodied husband cannot avoid the duty by suppressing income or pointing to her parents' support, found ₹3,000 per child wholly inadequate, and drew an adverse inference against the husband for withholding revenue records of family agricultural and dairy activities. It directed ₹5,000 a month for the wife and raised the children's maintenance to ₹4,000 each.
General information, not legal advice. This is a plain-language summary for awareness only. Every case turns on its own facts, and this judgment does not decide how a court will rule in your matter. For advice on your own case, speak to an independent advocate — MyCaseFile is not a law firm and does not interpret judgments for anyone's case.