Criminal Procedure Code

Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai

(2008) 2 SCC 316

Facts

Chaturbhuj and Sita Bai had been married for many years but lived separately for a long period.
Sita Bai applied for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
She alleged that:
her husband had sufficient income;
he had neglected her;
and she lacked adequate means to maintain herself.
Chaturbhuj argued that:
she had property or income of her own;
she had received money through transactions;
and she was therefore not “unable to maintain herself.”
The Magistrate awarded her ₹1,500 per month.
The order was affirmed in revision.
The husband approached the Supreme Court, contending that a wife must prove near-total destitution before maintenance can be granted. ( )

Section 125 is intended to prevent destitution and provide speedy social justice.
“Unable to maintain herself” does not mean that the wife must:
be starving;
have no possession at all;
or first become a public burden.
The court asks whether her independent resources are sufficient to maintain her in a reasonable manner consistent with:
basic dignity;
the circumstances of the marriage;
and the standard of life reasonably connected with the husband’s means.
The claimant must establish:
marital relationship;
neglect or refusal;
inability to maintain herself adequately;
and sufficient means of the husband.
Some earnings do not automatically bar maintenance.
BNSS Section 144 preserves the same basic remedy.

The husband relied upon alleged assets and financial transactions concerning Sita Bai.
The Court examined whether those matters actually provided her with:
regular income;
secure accommodation;
and sufficient support for ordinary living expenses.
A person may possess an asset yet lack usable income.
A one-time payment or uncertain property claim is not necessarily equivalent to monthly maintenance.
The Court rejected the argument that maintenance exists only for a woman reduced to absolute beggary.
Such an interpretation would defeat the preventive purpose of Section 125.
The husband had:
pension or other regular resources;
capacity to earn;
and sufficient means.
His obligation could not be avoided merely by showing that the wife somehow survived during separation.
Survival may depend upon:
relatives;
temporary assistance;
borrowing;
or severe deprivation.
The relevant question was whether she could maintain herself independently and reasonably.
The Magistrate had assessed:
the parties’ circumstances;
the husband’s resources;
and the wife’s actual position.
The maintenance amount was not shown to be arbitrary or beyond his ability.

The Supreme Court upheld the maintenance order.
It held that a wife need not establish absolute destitution.
Even where she has some income or property, maintenance may be awarded if those resources are insufficient for reasonable self-maintenance.
The case is the leading explanation of the phrase “unable to maintain herself.” ( )