A Husband Living in Poverty Cannot Be Forced to Pay Maintenance: Kerala High Court in Jubairiya vs. Saidalavi N [2025: KER: 68937]
Table of Contents
Introduction
In a noteworthy ruling, the High Court of Kerala clarified that a court cannot legally compel an indigent person—a person lacking means—to pay maintenance. The obligation to pay arises only when there is capacity to do so. This key principle was underscored in Jubairiya vs. Saidalavi N [2025: KER: 68937].
The judgment reaffirms that maintenance orders under Section 125 CrPC must rest on financial ability. Moral duty cannot outweigh economic incapacity.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, Jubairiya, second wife of the respondent, filed a claim for ₹10,000 per month before the Family Court, Malappuram. She alleged neglect and non-support. The respondent, Saidalavi, testified that he was indigent, surviving on begging and the charity of neighbors.
The petitioner admitted his indigent status but claimed, without proof, that he earned about ₹25,000 monthly through alms and small services such as paying utility bills.
Legal Issue
The question before the Court was whether a person who survives solely on charity can be legally compelled to pay maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
Court’s Observation
The Kerala High Court examined Section 125 CrPC, which seeks to prevent vagrancy by ensuring support from those with sufficient means. Liability, however, is conditional on the presence of such means.
“An indigent person cannot be fastened with a legal obligation to pay maintenance. The obligation to pay is contingent upon the ability to pay. When the person concerned lacks financial means, the compulsion of law must yield to the reality of poverty.”
The Court noted that compelling a destitute person to pay would effectively punish poverty, which the law cannot permit.
Judgment and Outcome
The Court dismissed the wife’s maintenance claim, holding that the respondent lacked financial capacity. It reaffirmed that the law cannot demand an impossible act from an indigent person.
Legal Analysis and Implications
This judgment highlights the humane aspect of maintenance law. Section 125 CrPC aims to prevent destitution, not to impose impossible obligations on those who themselves live in poverty.
Courts must carefully assess both parties’ means before ordering maintenance. This ruling ensures fairness, preventing misuse of the law against the financially incapable.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court’s decision in Jubairiya vs. Saidalavi N delivers a balanced and compassionate interpretation of maintenance law. It upholds that justice should protect dignity without imposing burdens beyond one’s capacity. Poverty, the Court held, cannot be punished under the guise of legal obligation.
FAQs
1. What is Section 125 CrPC?
Section 125 CrPC allows dependents—wife, children, or parents—to seek maintenance from someone with sufficient means who neglects or refuses to maintain them.
2. Can a person with no income be ordered to pay maintenance?
No. The law requires “sufficient means.” A person without income cannot be legally compelled to pay maintenance.
3. Who has the burden to prove financial means?
The claimant must prove that the respondent has enough means to pay maintenance. Mere assumptions do not suffice.
4. Does this ruling apply only to Kerala?
Though decided by the Kerala High Court, the interpretation of Section 125 CrPC is persuasive for courts across India.
Read more legal updates and case analyses at: Atharv Legal and Associates Blog
0 Comments
If you have any doubt, Please let me know.