12 December 2025 Legal Updates

S. 125 CRPC | EARNING LADY ABLE TO MAINTAIN HERSELF NOT ENTITLED TO MAINTENANCE FROM HUSBAND: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

(a) Case title:

• Ankit Saha vs. State of U.P. & Another

(b) Court:

• High Court of Allahabad 

(c) Date:

• December 3, 2025 

(d) Judge:

• Hon’ble Justice Madan Pal Singh 

Background

The revision challenged an order of the Family Court, Gautam Buddha Nagar, dated 17.02.2024, directing the petitioner (husband) to pay ₹5,000 per month as maintenance to his wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Key Arguments by Petitioner

The wife is well-educated (postgraduate, web designer) and employed as a Senior Sales Coordinator at Keiath Telecom Pvt. Ltd., earning ₹36,000 per month. She had not disclosed her employment and income in her initial application and claimed to be unemployed and illiterate. Under Section 125 Cr.P.C., maintenance is payable only if the wife is unable to maintain herself. The petitioner has financial responsibilities towards his aged parents, whereas the wife has no dependents.

Court’s Analysis

• Legal Provision: Section 125(1)(a) Cr.P.C. allows maintenance to a wife only if she is “unable to maintain herself.”
• Wife’s Financial Status: The Court found that the wife is earning ₹36,000/month, which is sufficient for her needs. She admitted this during cross-examination.
• Non-Disclosure of Facts: The wife suppressed her employment and income in her affidavit and application. The Court emphasized the principle of “clean hands”—litigants must disclose all material facts truthfully. Suppression of material facts disentitles a litigant to relief.

Decision

The Family Court’s order was set aside. The wife is not entitled to maintenance as she is capable of maintaining herself.

Key Legal Principles

• Section 125 Cr.P.C.: Maintenance is conditional on the claimant’s inability to maintain themselves.
• Doctrine of Clean Hands: Litigants must approach the court with honesty and full disclosure of facts. Suppression of material facts can lead to dismissal of the case.
• Judicial Discretion: Courts balance financial capacities, obligations, and factual truth while awarding maintenance.

DEMAND OF GOLD AT CHILD'S 'CHHOOCHHAK' CEREMONY NOT DOWRY DEMAND: SUPREME COURT QUASHES HUSBAND'S DOWRY DEATH CONVICTION

(a) Case Title:

• Baboo Khan vs. State of Rajasthan 

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India 

(c) Date of Decision:

• November 27, 2025 

(d) Bench:

• Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan 

Background

The appellant, Baboo Khan, was convicted under Sections 304B (dowry death) and 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives) of the Indian Penal Code by the trial court and the High Court. His wife and infant child were found dead in a well in November 1988, allegedly due to dowry demands and harassment.

Key Issues

• Whether the demand for a gold ring and chain at the chhoochhak ceremony (after childbirth) constitutes a "dowry demand" under Section 304B IPC.
• Whether the conviction under Section 498A IPC was justified.

Appellant’s Arguments

The demand for ornaments at the chhoochhak ceremony was not a dowry demand connected to marriage, but related to childbirth. The Court relied on Satvir Singh vs. State of Punjab (2001), where the Supreme Court held that demands made after marriage (like for childbirth) do not qualify as dowry under Section 304B. The appellant had already served more than the one-year sentence awarded under Section 498A.

Respondent’s Arguments

The demand for gold ornaments was a dowry demand and led to harassment and suicide. The conviction under both sections was proper.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

• On Section 304B:  The Court held that a demand made at the time of childbirth (not in connection with marriage) does not fall under the definition of "dowry" under Section 304B. Hence, conviction under Section 304B was set aside.
• On Section 498A: The Court found that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant subjected his wife to cruelty. The conviction under Section 498A was upheld.

Decision

Conviction under Section 304B: Quashed. Conviction under Section 498A: Confirmed.

Key Legal Principles

• Section 304B IPC: "Dowry" must be a demand for property or security in connection with marriage. Demands made after marriage (e.g., for childbirth ceremonies) do not qualify.
• Section 498A IPC: Covers cruelty by husband or relatives, which includes harassment for dowry or any willful conduct causing mental or physical harm.