Maintenance Reduced from ₹90K to ₹50K: Wife's ₹3.5 Crore Debt and Ongoing Loan-Default Proceedings Prompt Telangana HC to Clarify That Maintenance Isn’t for Business Loans

Not Sure How This Judgment Applies to Your Case?

Get a Preparatory Assessment : We will analyse your facts and show you exactly where you stand - no legal jargon, only clarity.

📄 Get a crisp, slide-based summary of the judgment.

Download the Visual Carousel (PDF)

Follow us on LinkedIn for real, practical family-law insights that matter.

Why the Telangana High Court Revisited the Scope of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC

Telangana High Court – Criminal Revision Case (CRL. R.C.) NO: 1188/2024 - Date of Order : 01.12.2025

Justice Renuka Yara

Harilal Dharmasoth (Petitioner) Vs. State of Telangana (Respondent)

Reason: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by husband aggrieved by the order dated 14.09.2024 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda, (‘Trial Court’), in M.C.No.192 of 2022, wherein a petition filed by wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance of Rs.2,50,000/- per month was partly allowed directing the husband to pay maintenance of Rs.90,000/- per month along with legal expenses of Rs.20,000/- and also to pay arrears from the date of petition within three months in three instalments from the date of order.

Brief Facts: According to wife, their marriage (registered marriage) took place on 19.01.1998 and her family members gave dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- in cash and two tulas of gold to the husband. The husband was working as a private employee with monthly salary of Rs.14,000/-. Thereafter, the husband went to United States of America (USA) on 24.01.1998 and started earning 60,000 dollars per annum. On 07.05.1998, their marriage was performed as per Hindu rites and customs by incurring expenses of Rs.3,00,000/-. Thereafter, wife joined the conjugal society of the husband and gave birth to two children out of the wedlock. According to wife, the husband had suspicious nature and therefore, did not allow her to have any communication and did not allow her to do any work. Further, the husband did not provide any financial assistance to wife, whereas, he was spending his earnings for welfare of his siblings and their children. Whenever, wife made attempts to ask about the income and savings of the husband, he reacted rudely and also physically attacked wife on some occasions and advised her not to interfere in his affairs. Further, the sister and brother-in-law of the husband also encouraged him to treat the wife like a slave.

Further, in the year 2007 wife moved to Bangalore along with their children. When wife asked the husband for money to meet the expenses, he would give half of the requirement. In the year 2017, the husband moved permanently to India after many altercations between the couple. In year the year 2016, wife opened a salon to meet her daily needs as the husband did not give her any money. The said salon went into losses because of Covid-19 and it was closed. The husband pushed wife from first floor due to which she fell down and sustained fracture to the leg. Wife always made efforts to adjust and cooperate with the husband, but the husband did not change his adamant attitude. Wife has spent nearly 24 years of marital life where she was not allowed to work and spent her life maintaining household and upbringing of the children. The husband neglected the wife without providing sufficient money while he was having income of more than Rs.5,00,000/- per month. Wife suffered mental trauma, maltreatment, cruelty and cheating by the husband. The husband is having movable and immovable properties whereas wife does not have any property and she is dependent on her parents and brother for livelihood. After separation from the husband, wife is living with her parents on their mercy. Hence, filed maintenance case.

The husband opposed the maintenance case before the trial Court by filing his detailed counter claiming that the marriage was solemnized on 19.01.1998 and actual wedding was performed as per Scheduled Tribe customs on 07.05.1998 at Gudur. The birth of two children out of wedlock is admitted, whereas all other allegations about treating wife with cruelty, not providing with money and not allowing her to work are denied. The husband claims that he supported wife and her family by transferring money while they were living in USA. The husband has put his property worth 1.59 crores in the name of wife, gave Rs.43,02,800/- in cash and also enabled her to start a salon by spending amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. Besides that the husband purchased gold, sarees, handbags and shoes for her. The husband denied checking phone records or not allowing wife to go out of house. Further, husband denied treating wife like slave for cooking, cleaning and other needs. Wife was repaying loans taken by her father with the money taken from the husband for maintenance of both the children as well as wife. Wife opened salon in the year 2017 and it was closed in the year 2019.

The husband denied pushing wife from first floor and causing injuries to her. It is the husband, who gave money and supported the business of wife and the husband relied upon the rental agreement dated 30.06.2017, which contains the name of the salon with advance amount of Rs.1,40,000/- which was given by the husband vide cheque dated 01.07.2017 drawn in favour of Apple City, through his bank account maintained in State Bank of India, Indira Nagar Branch. The husband further provided Rs.6,00,000/- including the cheque amount to support her wish to open salon. No complaint is given by wife for being pushed by the husband from first floor in the month of November, 2017. The husband denied getting separated from wife in the year 2017 instead they lived together with children till late 2021.

Further, the cause of action of the maintenance case is denied. The husband pleaded that wife has filed the present maintenance case, another maintenance case under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 in M.C. No. 296 of 2022, a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in F.C.O.P. No. 1154 of 2022 and DVC No. 94 of 2024 before the Courts at Medchal-Malkajgiri District and a criminal case vide C.C. No.556 of 2022 pending on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Thorrur. Wife in order to gain unjust benefit of easy money filed the aforementioned cases. According to the husband, wife borrowed huge money from the relatives and banks and defaulted. In order to pay off debts is claiming huge money from him. During interregnum between 1999 to 2004, the husband gave Rs.11,40,000/- to his father-in-law for various reasons and also provided financial assistance for the purpose of study expenses of his brother-in-law (brother of wife) up to engineering to a sum of Rs.6,60,000/- for nine years and spent Rs.2,00,000/- for coaching for writing GRE, TOFEL, etc,. The brother-in-law of the husband failed to get proper score in GRE and therefore, could not pursue MS in USA. The husband was asked to pay Rs.20,00,000/- towards study expenses of his brother-in-law for MS, but the husband denied. Therefore, wife tortured him emotionally for a period of one year in the year 2008.

According to the husband, wife used to blackmail him and threaten to commit suicide by keeping him away and ignoring and rejecting his words. Wife used to not talk to relatives of the husband, not support the kids, not taking care of the house, not cook food and used to regularly go to her hometown. The husband paid Rs.90,00,000/- from the year 2015-2017 through many ways and fixed deposits which were meant to their marriage expenses were also withdrawn. Wife sold gold jewellery worth 600 grams worth of Rs.30,00,000/- and five kgs silver worth Rs.3,00,000/- and spent Rs.6,00,000/- for opening the salon. Wife also tried to murder the husband on three occasions and this was discovered by their daughter. In the month of July, 2013, wife informed the husband her interest to work as LKG teacher and started working in Narayana E-Techno School in Marathahalli, Bangalore. She also changed few other schools from 2013 to 2017. Thereafter, wife borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- from the husband to invest in school KidZ Kadugodi and became partner in the said school. The husband asked wife to show him the terms and conditions of partnership, but wife refused to do so stating that he does not believe his wife and there is no point in living together. The husband paid Rs.10,00,000/- without questions and said school worked till 2017. Wife lost three mangalsutras for three times in three years between 2014-2016 and Rs.1,00,000/- was spent each time to purchase new mangalsutra. Wife has habit of locking herself and not having physical contact causing panic in family members. In November, 2017, when the husband left to India, wife started blackmailing him for money and on 21.11.2017, when husband was in online meeting suddenly he heard a noise and found that wife was laying on ground floor in the garden. He learnt that she fell down from first floor and accordingly shifted her to Narayana Hrudayalaya Multi Speciality Hospital. She sustained fracture injury and was discharged after three days. When her parents and her brother came to see her and stayed in Bangalore for a month, they did not discuss anything about the incident. Wife informed them that she slipped and fell down from first floor and sustained fracture injury. The husband himself paid all the hospital bills and further after two years i.e., on 01.07.2019 surgery was performed removing the implants. Wife has committed many acts such as jumping from first floor by way of threatening to commit suicide and threatening to give divorce, sleeping in ashrams, not talking to husband for months etc. Further, wife has borrowed money from various individuals amounting to Rs.3,48,10,157/-.

Wife by various means took an amount of Rs.1,59,62,400/- from the husband.

According to the husband, the aforementioned entire information was suppressed by wife. The children are living with the husband at Bangalore. Though, the husband made attempts to bring wife back to live with him the said attempts failed. It is the husband who suffered more physical abuse due to the acts of wife. The other family members of the husband also suffered along with him. Therefore, the husband denied the cause of action for filing of the maintenance case and sought for its dismissal.

Upon examining the case of both the parties, the learned Trial Court partly allowed the maintenance case by granting Rs.90,000/- per month as maintenance to wife from the date of petition along with Rs.20,000/- legal expenses. Aggrieved by same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

Husband’s grounds in the revision:

In the grounds of the revision, the husband pleaded that the Trial Court failed to consider that his son and daughter are aged about 25 and 23 years and they are in his care and that he has to pay monthly EMIs of Rs.2,52,681/- towards home loan, Rs.3,792/- towards gold loan, Rs.2530/- towards son’s educational expenses and Rs.32,000/- towards educational loan of his children. Therefore, in spite of having salary of Rs.2,62,117/- and Rs.40,000/- towards rental income, he is left with amount of Rs.11,114/- only. Wife worked as teacher for about four years and has drawn salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. The said bank statement has been marked and the same is admitted by her in the cross-examination. Further, wife was running a beauty parlour during the year 2017 and was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. It is also pleaded that there is admission by wife that during marital life of 25 years, the husband has borne all the expenses. However, she voluntarily separated from him without any reason. There is admission by wife about the children being in the care and custody of the husband and that their expenses are part of the husband’s household expenses. Therefore, it would impact the decision of granting maintenance of Rs.90,000/- per month. The statement of assets and liabilities of the husband shows that he has Rs.2,53,21,927/- Axis Bank loan for 17 years with monthly EMI of Rs.2,52,681/- and other loans from other banks totalling to EMI of Rs.2,59,003/- per month and the said fact has not been considered by the Trial Court. The husband pleaded that they have lived happily for 23 years and multiple times offer was made to take care of loans of wife and invited her to join the matrimonial society. Despite said fact, wife made several murder attempts on the husband and the said act shows the nature and intent of wife. In the forgoing circumstances, awarding of Rs.90,000/- per month by the Trial Court towards maintenance, according to the husband, is erroneous and not in tune with the material on record as such prayed to set aside the same.

Wife’s counter to the revision:

Wife filed her counter pleading that the judgment of the Trial Court is in conformity with law, proper assessment of evidence and alignment with probabilities of the case. According to wife, their children are aged about 25 and 23 years and are adults and are financially independent and not dependant on the husband. The children are supporting the husband and have taken on the responsibility of his care. Moreover, the children have chosen to distance themselves from wife, which demonstrates their independence. With respect to income, it is pleaded that the actual income of the husband is Rs.9,00,000/- per month and not Rs.2,52,117/- as claimed by him. He has investments in mutual funds. Further, the income of Rs.40,000/- from rent is baseless and he receives more amount as rent from multiple properties. Wife contended that the husband is paying EMI for house loan and besides that there is no evidence to support his claim of other EMIs. Further, wife pleaded that she worked from 2014 to 2016 as teacher and had income of Rs.8,000/- per month. Currently, wife is medically unfit and therefore, incapable of employment. Wife has no qualification except 10^th grade and no formal employment. The children have distanced themselves and have abandoned wife. Wife is living with her parents. It is pleaded that the Trial Court has rightly considered her 25 years of marriage where she was excessively frugal and also in the face of insults and humiliation subjected by the husband for minor financial discrepancies. Wife further pleaded that she took care of the family being accountable for every smallest expense while the husband was residing in USA. In case there was adequate financial support she would not have to work hard for meagre salary. According to wife, the husband has taken all of her salary leaving her with nothing. The actual income of the husband is more than the evidence submitted before the Trial Court. Wife pleaded that the Trial Court decision to grant monthly maintenance of Rs.90,000/- is justified, more-so, when the children are independent. Wife also pleaded that the husband refused to support her when she is only educated up to 10^th grade and he also withheld Rs.8,000/- earned by her. Wife also pleaded that the husband is in a position to pay maintenance and therefore, the Trial Court has granted maintenance and that the husband approached this Court with unclean hands, as such prayed to dismiss the present revision.

Arguments of husband in revision:

During the arguments, the husband referred to the loans taken by wife and also the civil and criminal cases pending against her. It is argued that wife is a person who spends beyond her means and in the process has caused untold hardship to the husband and his children. The children are in the care and custody of the husband and do not have anything to do with their mother on account of the troubles caused by her. It is further argued that the husband has taken care of wife and her needs all through their marital life, but on her own wife had left the matrimonial house leaving the children and therefore, she is not entitled to be granted with maintenance. Further, it is argued that while granting maintenance of Rs.90,000/-, the Trial Court failed to consider the expenses to be borne by the husband for the maintenance of his house and the maintenance of the children. The assets and liabilities filed by the husband clearly show that he has to approximately pay Rs.2,50,000/- per month towards EMIs. Therefore, in

spite of having salary of Rs.2,50,000/- per month and rental income of Rs.40,000/-, the husband is hardly left with any amount and therefore grant of Rs.90,000/- per month towards maintenance of single lady is unwarranted. Lastly, it is argued that wife is capable of earning as she already has experience in teaching and has also run a beauty parlour and therefore, it is not a fit case to deem her as a person, who is not capable of maintaining herself and therefore, cannot be granted with maintenance of Rs.90,000/- per month. Alternatively, it is argued that even in case this Court intends to grant monthly maintenance, the same may be reduced to suit the expenses of a single person.

Arguments of wife in revision:

Wife argued that there was mental and physical torture by the husband and therefore, wife was compelled to leave the matrimonial house. It is argued that wife has spent 25 years of marital life and is currently living with no support and is dependent on her parents for maintenance. It is also emphasized that currently wife has no employment and income and therefore, she is a person / wife, who is unable to maintain herself and therefore, is entitled to grant of maintenance. The said maintenance has to be on par with the life style she got accustomed to during 25 years of marital life. It is argued that any able bodied husband has an obligation to maintain his wife and therefore, the husband is under an obligation to maintain his wife. Further, grant of maintenance of Rs.90,000/- per month is appropriate as the same is required by wife to maintain her lifestyle on par with that of her life while she was with the husband. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the present revision.

Observations of the Hon’ble High Court:

The facts borne out by the record are that the husband and wife were married for about 25 years. They lived in USA for about 10 years and then they returned back to India. The husband, wife and their children are citizens of USA. Wife claims that husband caused physical and mental torture and also financially deprived her and further, the husband used to lock her whenever he went outside. According to wife, husband did not show any respect towards her as wife, never gave any money and never let her have freedom. At one instance, he pushed her down from first floor and the same resulted in fracture of leg. She is a wife, who is not capable of maintaining herself and therefore, is entitled to payment of maintenance.

The contra stand of the husband is that wife was respected and maintained by taking care of her needs in every respect. However, she has habit of living beyond her means and ended up taking loans of nearly Rs.3,50,00,000/- from various individuals and banks. In that context, there are several civil and criminal cases filed against her. She has voluntarily left the house and therefore, he is not liable to pay any maintenance. The husband claims that wife threatened him to jump from first floor and made false allegations against him. She has left the children leaving them in his care and custody. The husband was willing to deal with the debts taken by wife and requested her to join his company, but she not only refused to join him, but also made attempts to murder him. Further, according to the husband, wife worked as school teacher earning Rs.10,000/- per month and also used to run a beauty salon from the year 2017 to 2019 and therefore, she is capable of maintaining herself.

In the backdrop of rival contentions, it is seen that during cross-examination, wife has admitted that she visited India eight times during her 11 years stay in USA with the husband and for every visit the travelling expenses were borne by the husband. Further, during 25 years of marital life, the husband has borne all expenses of wife. There is admission to the effect that while she was pregnant for the second time, the husband has sent her to the in-laws house for a period of four months and he had sent money for expenses of his son and thereafter, she returned to USA after the birth of female child. Wife clearly admitted that she is capable of running salon. Further, while wife claimed husband had Ac.30-00 of land in his native village, in cross-examination she conceded that he may have only Ac.9-00 of land, but not Ac.30-00 of land as claimed by her. Wife admitted that photographs under Ex. R-6 show that she was working as a teacher in a school. Ex. R-7 is appreciation certificate issued by said school authorities. Wife denied all the allegations with respect to pendency of criminal cases against her.

The aforementioned contents of the cross-examination show that wife made an attempt to show the husband in extreme bad light about his attitude towards her as a wife and maintaining her dignity. Wife portrayed husband as person, who controlled her freedom and financial status by not allowing her to do anything independently, as per the pleadings of the maintenance case and her chief affidavit. However, in cross-examination it is elicited that while they lived in USA as well as Bangalore during the time of their marriage in the year 1998 till the year 2017, wife did not give any complaint against the husband. In the year 2017, it appears that marital disputes have cropped up culminating in separation of the couple. It appears that after wife started business of beauty salon along with another person there was borrowing of huge amounts of money from individuals and institutions. Wife claims that she never borrowed said amounts as the entire financial dealings are done by her husband. She claims involvement of the husband in borrowing money from various avenues. The claim of wife on one hand may seem probable as she is a lady, who has studied only up to 10^th  standard and there was chance to manipulate. Whereas, on the other hand it is seen that until beauty salon business was started by wife in the year 2017, there were no major disputes or fallout between the couple such that they had to approach police. As long as wife did not venture to borrow loans that too to an extent of Rs.3,50,00,000/-, there was no fallout between the parties.

Coming to the claim of wife that she was only a mascot while the entire financial transactions were conducted by the husband is a point to be considered. There is a need to pose a question as to why the husband, who is successful in his career and has acquired sizeable amount of property would use wife as a mascot to borrow money from various individuals and institutions. If such modus operandi was to be employed by the husband to borrow money for illegal gain using wife as medium, he could have done so ever since his marriage in 1998 to the year 2017. However, such is not the case. Having lived marital life of 20 years, without relying upon his wife’s earning, it does not stand to reason that suddenly the husband intended to earn money by borrowing money through his wife. The husband, who is Software Engineer, who has considerable amount of immovable property need not encourage wife to enter into beauty salon business along with another person. It is point to be noted that wife worked as school teacher from 2011 to 2016 for modest income of Rs.10,000/- per month. During the said time period, there were no complaints and disputes between the parties. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the picture presented by wife about the husband running her financial transactions from behind scene is not entirely true.

In normal course as per the judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha of the Honourable Supreme Court of India, both husband and wife are expected to file affidavit of their respective assets and liabilities in a maintenance case and substantiate the same with supporting documentary evidence. In the present case, wife for her part has given a list of movable and immovable assets of the husband, in support thereof, relied upon Exs. P-6 to P-11. These aforementioned documents do prove that wife owns immovable property. In response, the husband herein produced extensive documentary evidence ranging from Ex. R-1 which shows establishment of beauty salon in the name of wife, Ex. R-2 summary of bank account, Ex. R-3 rental agreement and Exs. R-4, 5, 19, 20, 21 and 22 showing various civil and criminal cases being registered against wife and other documentary evidence showing amount of money that was spent by the husband towards expenses of wife. Further, evidence is produced to show the loans taken by wife.

In a normal maintenance case, where a wife is unable to support herself, the husband is put under an obligation to maintain her. This obligation of the husband to maintain his wife under no circumstances can be translated or twisted to mean that the husband has to bear the consequences of either thoughtless or deliberate spending of money by wife for purposes which may or may not be meant for meeting the financial needs of the family.

In the instant case, firstly there is failure on the part of wife in coming out clean with respect to loans borrowed by her and the civil and criminal cases pending against her. The said facts were brought to fore only by the husband. Even after said facts were brought to the notice of the Court by the husband, there is a blanket denial on the part of wife for any mismanagement of finances. To the contrary, wife is trying to shift the blame for financial mismanagement on to her husband, claiming that though transactions were done in her name, the actual person conducting such transactions is her husband. Having made such claim to disown the difficult situation created on account of multiple loans taken from individuals and institutions and the resultant civil and criminal cases, wife failed to put forth convincing evidence before the Trial Court to demonstrate that the husband is the real person behind the loan transactions involving her. The black and white evidence on paper and complaints given by various individuals and institutions goes to show that it is wife who is instrumental in taking loans. Per contra, the evidence on record shows that the husband herein has sufficient source of income and through his prudence he has acquired considerable immovable property with EMIs which are payable within control. There are no transactions demonstrated either by wife or the husband to show that the husband at any point of time went out of control with respect to his finances. There is no evidence on record to believe that the husband at any point of time had any intention to depend on income of wife either for his survival or for running expenses of his family.

In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Trial Court has passed the impugned order without referring to any of the evidence adduced on record except for considering the income of the respective parties. While there is no dispute about legal ratio laid down in the judgment of Rajnesh (cited supra), the said legal ratio needs to be applied for considering amount of maintenance to be granted to the wife for her survival with dignity, but not for the purposes of repayment of loans taken by the wife for doing business or other financial activities which have nothing to do with maintenance of the family.

The impugned order shows that much time has been spent on pleadings and arguments, but no reference is made to the admissions made by wife as P.W.2 and the evidence which shows habit of wife of borrowing loans from individuals and institutions reflected in the documents exhibited in R series.

Wife only focused on demonstrating her marital status as wife of the husband, property owned by the husband and to show that husband did not respect her and she is entitled to maintenance as a wife. While so, the husband concentrated on disproving adverse allegations made against him by wife to demonstrate her conduct of borrowing of loans from individuals and institutions and amount spent by her during marital life over number of years. There is no rebuttal on the part of the husband on the evidence adduced by wife with respect to expenses incurred by her and the various civil and criminal cases pending against her. On account of failure to assess the factual situation of the present case, the Trial Court has granted Rs.90,000/- towards maintenance on the premise that husband is working as Engineering Manager at XYZ Limited with salary of Rs.2,62,117/- and Rs.40,000/- towards rental income while maintenance needs to be granted to wife that too in accordance with lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial house. By any stretch of imagination one person’s expenses cannot be Rs.90,000/- per month. No matter what kind of expenses are incurred towards food and travel, one individual can be maintained with expenses of Rs.25,000/- per month, which is income for low income families. Even in case said amount is doubled to meet other expenses such as medical and other unforeseen expenses, an individual cannot spend more than Rs.50,000/- per month.

Coming to the liabilities of wife towards various individuals and institutions, wife might have some inkling about the manner in which said liabilities are to be discharged. Further, wife while receiving maintenance from her husband can always do some work in case she needs more money than the maintenance provided by her husband. Wife claimed to be medically unfit, but failed to produce any evidence to prove the same. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to believe that wife is completely incapable of working.

In the circumstances, this Court deems it fit and proper to modify the order passed by the Trial Court by decreasing the amount of maintenance of Rs.90,000/- granted to Rs.50,000/- per month for wife to lead a decent life on par with the husband.

In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed by modifying the impugned order dated 14.09.2024 passed by the trial Court in M.C. No. 192 of 2022 to the extent of the maintenance amount of Rs.90,000/- per month reduced to Rs.50,000/- per month payable by the husband. The additional amount already deposited if any shall be adjusted. The arrears amount, if any, pending shall be paid within three months in three instalments from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Rest of the conditions of the impugned order, stands affirmed.