Acquittal in Section 498A IPC case no ground to deny maintenance to wife: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a husband cannot refuse to pay maintenance to his wife or children solely because he was acquitted in a cruelty case lodged by her against him under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Justice Gajendra Singh said that the wife and minor child under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) only have to prove that they are unable to maintain themselves and the person from whom they seek maintenance has sufficient means to maintain them. 

“The above provision of Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. and Section 144(4) of the BNSS does not envisages that acquittal of husband from criminal proceedings lodged on the report of the wife would provide any exception to deny the maintenance to the wife or minor child. The only effect may be that he may put the acquittal only for the purpose that he is not neglecting or refusing the wife to maintain. Therefore, the plea of acquittal from criminal prosecution under Section 498-A in itself is not a ground to deny the maintenance to the wife or minor children if it is proved that they are unable to maintain themselves and husband is having sufficient means and neglects of maintenance,” the Court held.

The Court was dealing with the case of an estranged couple from Indore. The couple, both law graduates, had married in 2013 and a child was born to them in 2017.

In 2018, the wife moved a trial court alleging cruelty by husband including demand of dowry. She stated that she was unable to maintain herself and the child and sought ₹75,000 monthly maintenance for herself and for her son under Section 125 of CrPC.

The husband denied the allegations and accused the wife of deserting the matrimonial home without sufficient case. However, he also said that they reside in the same home. He also stated that she had registered a false case under Section 498A of IPC against him.

In April 2025, a family court ordered monthly maintenance of ₹10,000 for the wife and child. The husband then moved the High Court challenging the trial court order. The wife also filed a separate petition seeking enhancement of maintenance.

In a common judgment passed on April 17, the Court said that there was nothing on record to suggest that the wife was earning anything from her profession.

It added that her recent enrolment with the State Bar Council was not sufficient to infer that her income was sufficient to maintain herself and the child.

With regard to her share in the immovable property recorded in her father’s name, the Court said the wife was yet to receive the benefits of the property. Further, the Court also rejected the husband’s argument on the wife living separately even if in the same house.

“She has provided detailed reasons for living separately, whereas the husband has taken multiple excuses and has even objected to her residing in the house,” the Bench said. 

The Court also found that the acquittal in the criminal case was due to the fact that the wife and her parents had turned hostile. It accepted the wife’s explanation that it was a result of a compromise. Accordingly, the Court ruled that acquittal would not grant any benefit to the husband.

Considering the findings, the Court enhanced the total maintenance for wife and minor child to ₹16,000 per month.

Advocates Sangeeta Choudhary and Yogendra Mehta represented the husband.

Advocate Arprit Singh appeared for the wife.