Introduction
The provision of Section 125 CrPC is designed to prevent destitution and vagrancy by securing minimal subsistence for wives, children, and parents neglected by those legally bound to maintain them. However, in many cases, women are forced to accept meagre, inadequate maintenance amounts, violating their right to live with dignity.
The Supreme Court in Shamima Farooqui vs Shahid Khan (2015) delivered a significant judgment reinforcing the principle that maintenance should be realistic, reasonable, and sufficient to enable a woman to live in a manner befitting her status and dignity.
Background of the Case
Facts of the Case
- Shamima Farooqui, the appellant-wife, married Shahid Khan in 1992. However, soon after marriage, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and his family.
- In 1998, she left the matrimonial home and started living separately.
- In 2002, she filed a maintenance application under Section 125 CrPC, claiming ₹ 10,000 per month.
- The Family Court awarded her ₹ 2,000 per month as maintenance.
- The wife challenged this order, contending that the amount was grossly inadequate considering the husband’s earning capacity as a government employee.
- The High Court of Allahabad dismissed her revision petition, maintaining the ₹ 2,000 monthly maintenance.
Dissatisfied, she approached the Supreme Court of India.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Hon’ble Supreme Court made several important and progressive observations while adjudicating the matter.
1. Duty to Provide Maintenance is Absolute
The Court reaffirmed that a husband’s duty to maintain his wife, unable to maintain herself, is absolute, unconditional, and legal.
The Apex Court stated that a woman cannot be made to suffer and live a life of destitution or vagrancy once she has been legally married, especially when the husband is capable of maintaining her.
2. Right to Live with Dignity
The Court emphasised that maintenance must enable a woman to live with dignity. Mere subsistence-level maintenance cannot be treated as adequate under Section 125 CrPC.
The judgment stated:
“A wife’s sustenance does not mean mere animal existence. She is entitled to lead a life in the same manner as she would have lived in her matrimonial home.”
3. Consideration of Husband’s Earning Capacity
The Supreme Court criticised the lower courts for arbitrarily fixing a paltry amount of ₹ 2,000, despite the husband being a government servant with a steady income.
It held that courts must assess the realistic and actual earning capacity of the husband, and not mechanically award low amounts that defeat the very purpose of Section 125 CrPC.
4. Maintenance is a Continuing Obligation
The Court observed that maintenance is a continuing obligation of the husband, irrespective of his personal convenience or marital disputes. The obligation remains unless legally terminated by divorce with appropriate settlements.
Key Legal Principles Laid Down
- A husband has a moral, social, and legal duty to maintain his wife, and he cannot escape this by offering negligible amounts.
- Maintenance awarded must be realistic, fair, and sufficient to ensure the wife’s dignity and decent standard of living.
- Courts must consider the husband’s income, status, and liabilities while deciding maintenance, ensuring that the wife does not live in poverty or deprivation.
- Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is a statutory right distinct from any claim for alimony under personal laws or civil proceedings.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Shamima Farooqui vs Shahid Khan is a significant milestone in the area of matrimonial and maintenance law. It reaffirmed the judiciary’s commitment to upholding a woman’s right to maintenance as a matter of dignity and livelihood.
This case serves as a strong precedent cautioning trial courts and family courts against awarding tokenistic maintenance and reminds them to fix maintenance that is fair, practical, and sufficient for the woman to live with respect.
The verdict continues to guide maintenance cases across India and is often cited for its emphatic articulation of a woman’s right to dignified sustenance post-marriage.
Citation:
For a detailed understanding, you can refer to the full judgment here: Shamima Farooqui vs Shahid Khan (2015)
Important: Kindly Refer New Corresponding Sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, (BNS); Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, (BNSS); & Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, (BSA) for IPC; CrPC & IEA used in the article.
Disclaimer: This information is intended for general guidance only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult with a qualified lawyer for personalized advice specific to your situation.
Advocate J.S. Rohilla (Civil & Criminal Lawyer in Indore)
Contact: 88271 22304