Anu Aggarwal v. Sushant Aggarwal, 2026
It clarifies that maintenance under Section 125 is remedial, not punitive or a means to obtain undeserved financial advantage.
Judgement Details
Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Date of Decision
22 January 2026
Judges
Justice Alok Jain
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The petitioner-wife filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance from her husband.
-
The Family Court dismissed her application, finding that she had concealed her employment, income, and financial assets, and was therefore not entitled to maintenance.
-
The petitioner argued that her income was insufficient for self-maintenance and that she resided with her father and was entirely dependent on him.
-
She claimed to have adopted a child (her sister’s daughter), but admitted in cross-examination that the husband had never consented to the adoption, and there was no official or documentary record of the adoption.
-
The petitioner admitted holding Kisan Vikas Patras, a Public Provident Fund account with over ₹15 lakhs, and other bank accounts, including a separate salary account, which she failed to fully disclose or produce documents for.
-
Evidence showed that the petitioner was well-qualified (B.Ed., M.A. Hindi, M.A. Art & Craft) and had been gainfully employed throughout, undermining her claim of financial distress.
-
The High Court examined the petition for maintenance, the petitioner’s concealment of material facts, and her attempts to mislead the Court.
Issues
-
Whether the petitioner-wife was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC despite concealing her employment, income, and financial assets from the Court?
-
Whether failure to disclose financial resources and adoption details amounts to mala fide conduct sufficient to deny maintenance?
-
Whether Section 125 CrPC can be invoked as a tool for unjust enrichment rather than for its statutory purpose of preventing destitution?
Judgement
-
The Court held that the petitioner deliberately concealed material facts about her employment, income, and financial assets, including bank balances exceeding ₹15 lakhs.
-
It observed that the petitioner’s claims of financial hardship were improbable and indicative of mala fide intent to mislead the Court.
-
The Court noted that the petitioner failed to provide evidence for adoption of a child and admitted the respondent-husband had not consented, showing attempts to invoke undue sympathy.
-
The petitioner was found to be highly qualified and gainfully employed, and there was no immediate financial distress necessitating maintenance.
-
The Court emphasised that Section 125 CrPC is meant to prevent destitution, not for unjust enrichment or harassment of the respondent.
-
The petition challenging the Family Court’s order was dismissed.
Held
-
Petitioner not entitled to maintenance due to concealment of income and assets.
-
Section 125 CrPC protects destitute individuals but cannot be misused for unjust enrichment.
-
Mala fide conduct, suppression of material facts, or misrepresentation can lead to denial of maintenance.
-
No error in the Family Court’s dismissal of the petitioner’s application.
Analysis
-
Reinforces the principle that full disclosure of financial resources is mandatory when claiming maintenance.
-
Clarifies that maintenance under Section 125 is remedial, not punitive or a means to obtain undeserved financial advantage.
-
Emphasises judicial scrutiny of claims to prevent misuse of the legal process.
-
Highlights the Court’s focus on self-reliance, dignity, and capability of the claimant in determining entitlement.
-
Acts as a deterrent against frivolous or mala fide maintenance petitions that undermine the law’s purpose.