Husband Merely Saying He Is 'Ready' To Keep Wife With Him, Not Valid Maintenance Offer Under Second Proviso To S.125(3) CrPC: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court said that husband challenging the maintenance granted to his wife by family court on the ground he is 'ready and willing to keep' her with him, does not constitute a valid offer.

The husband had claimed that because he ready and willing to keep the respondent wife with him, she is not entitled to the maintenance amount.The husband had moved a revision plea before the high court against the family court's order granting monthly maintenance of Rs 3000 in favour of the wife.

Section 125 CrPC pertains to Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. Section 125(3) states that if a person who has been ordered to maintain, refuses to comply with the order, the magistrate may issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines.

The second Proviso states: "Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing".

This means that even if wife refuses to live with husband despite him offering to maintain her on the condition that she lives with him, the Magistrate may consider her grounds of refusal and may pass a maintenance order under Section 125 notwithstanding such offer if he is satisfied. 

Justice G.S. Ahluwalia in his order observed that the husband never made an application offering to keep his wife and their child with him before the family court. It referred to the second proviso to Section 125(3) of the CrPC and said:

"Since petitioner never offered to maintain his wife, therefore, merely because he has stated in his reply to the application, this Court is of the considered opinion that the stand taken by the petitioner in his reply cannot be said to be an offer made by the petitioner".

The court further remarked that the husband should have made the offer to the wife in her cross-examination. It further noted that the husband should have either stated the same in his evidence or filed an application. 

"According to petitioner, nothing of that sort was done by him," the court observed. 

The court thus dismissed the husband's revision plea. 

Case Title: A v B (CRR-6279-2024)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 175

Click here to read the Order