Family Law

Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai

(2008) 2 SCC 316

Facts

Sita Bai sought maintenance from her husband under Section 125 CrPC.
The parties had been living separately for many years.
She alleged that:
she had no employment;
she lacked sufficient income;
the husband had pension and other earnings but neglected her.
The husband argued that she could maintain herself because:
a house had been constructed in her name and allegedly generated rent;
agricultural land had been purchased in her name and later sold;
she lived with one of their sons.
He was a retired Assistant Director of Agriculture and received a pension.
The Trial Court found that the wife’s resources were insufficient and awarded ₹1,500 per month.
The revisional court and High Court refused to interfere.
The husband appealed to the Supreme Court.

What does “unable to maintain herself” mean under Section 125?
Must a wife be absolutely destitute before claiming maintenance?
Does possession of some property or occasional income automatically defeat her claim?

Section 125 is a social-justice measure intended to prevent neglect, destitution and vagrancy.
The wife need not prove that she is completely penniless.
“Unable to maintain herself” means unable to maintain herself adequately in a manner reasonably consistent with the marital standard of life.
Some income or property is relevant but not conclusive.
The court must examine whether it is sufficient for:
food;
clothing;
residence;
medical needs;
normal living expenses.
The applicant must show that:
the husband has sufficient means;
he neglected or refused maintenance;
her own resources are insufficient.
An able-bodied husband’s means include actual income and reasonable earning capacity.

The husband treated the existence of a house and land as automatic proof of self-sufficiency.
The Court rejected that approach.
The real question was not whether Sita Bai possessed any asset at all, but whether those assets provided adequate, regular income.
The courts below had examined the evidence and found that:
rent was insufficient or irregular;
the sale proceeds of the land did not establish continuing financial security;
living with a son did not remove the husband’s statutory responsibility.
Support received from children or relatives cannot ordinarily be used by the husband to transfer his own duty onto them.
The husband’s pension and additional sources showed that he had sufficient means to pay the modest amount ordered.
Maintenance under Section 125 is not meant to provide luxury, but neither should it force a wife to survive at bare-starvation level.
The standard must be reasonable and practical.
The Supreme Court also noted that the Trial Court, revisional court and High Court had reached concurrent factual findings.
No perversity or serious legal error justified reappreciating the entire evidence in a further appeal.

The husband’s appeal was dismissed.
The award of ₹1,500 per month was upheld.
A wife need not be reduced to absolute destitution before Section 125 applies.
Limited or irregular income does not defeat the claim when it is insufficient for reasonable maintenance.
Use this case for: the meaning of “unable to maintain herself” and the rule that absolute poverty is not required.