Hon’ble High Court of Madras has, in this judgment, held that no maintenance for knife who is duly employed and having sufficient means and source of income.
On bare perusal of the petition for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the 1st respondent, this Court is able to see that in the petition it is focused that the revision petitioner to be a person of sound financial capacity, besides holding valuable assets. It is obvious to see the petition primly projects the financial capacity of the revision petitioner rather than describing the respondent’s incapacity and inability to maintain her.
The provision of maintenance provided under section 125 CrPC is neither penal nor compulsory, but is to be decided in the light of the financial capacity of the wife to maintain herself.
From Para 34,
Hari Har Raj Kalingarayar Vs Aarti on 22 June, 2018
Before parting with the case, this Court expresses its deep concern that though the legislation for maintenance is a valuable and beneficial legislation safeguarding hapless and helpless wife, who is unable to maintain herself, but there are some instances in which as in the case on hand the wife focus her husband as like that of an automated teller machine and the beneficial provisions of law is managed to be utilized as a tool of harassment.