125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court

"After spoiling the life of a lady by resorting to such a dubious method, the petitioner cannot evade from his responsibility to make payment of maintenance to the respondent." Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling dated 30 September 2026, held that a husband cannot use physical disability as a shield to evade maintenance obligations when the court finds, based on a preponderance of probabilities, that he is suppressing his actual financial means.

Justice G. Girish observed that the obligation to provide maintenance is not strictly contingent upon an "able-bodied" status when evidence suggests that the party possesses the resources to sustain the spouse.

The parties were married in August 2015 following a matrimonial advertisement placed by the husband. The wife subsequently initiated proceedings for maintenance, alleging that the marriage was never consummated and that the husband had essentially used the matrimonial process to secure a caregiver. The Family Court at Kottayam awarded the wife maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000 per month, rejecting the husband's plea that his 70% permanent locomotor disability, resulting from a paralytic stroke, rendered him incapable of earning or paying maintenance.

The primary question before the court was whether a husband can be exempted from maintenance liability under Section 125 of the CrPC solely on the grounds of physical incapacity. The court also examined whether the trial court’s reliance on the "preponderance of probabilities" regarding the husband's hidden income justified the maintenance award despite medical evidence of disability.

Physical Incapacity vs. Financial Means

The court acknowledged that while medical records confirmed the petitioner suffered from a 70% permanent locomotor disability, this did not absolve him of his duty to support his wife. The bench clarified that the duty to maintain is not solely tethered to the physical capacity to perform labour but to the possession of means, whether through assets, investments, or hidden income.

Court Rejects Plea of Incapacity

The court noted that the Family Court had correctly shifted the focus from the husband's physical disability to his actual financial capability. By observing that the husband had sufficient resources to meet the marriage expenses and had maintained the wife previously, the court below inferred that the husband was deliberately concealing his income to avoid legal obligations.

"The physical incapacity of the petitioner as disclosed by the medical records does not assume any relevance, since the finding of the court below about the capability of the petitioner to maintain his wife is not on the basis of the concept of an able-bodied person."

Dubious Conduct as a Factor

The court took a stern view of the husband’s admission that the matrimonial advertisement was a "deceitful tactic" used to procure a "maid servant" under the guise of marriage. The High Court observed that such conduct essentially amounted to manipulating the matrimonial institution, and the petitioner could not be permitted to use his self-created circumstances to escape his liability toward the wife.

Court Highlights Deceitful Conduct

The bench emphasized that the petitioner’s actions, including entering into a marriage with full knowledge of his inability to perform conjugal obligations, disqualified him from seeking leniency. The court found that the petitioner’s intent was to evade responsibility through a "dubious method," which the law would not sanction.

"The court below had analysed the preponderance of probabilities to find that the petitioner is having the means to pay maintenance at the aforesaid rate, but he is concealing such income to try whether he could evade from the responsibility to pay maintenance to his wife."

Finding no illegality, impropriety, or error in the order passed by the Family Court, the High Court dismissed the revision petition. The ruling reinforces the principle that maintenance proceedings are social welfare measures where the court may look beyond the surface of a party's claims to identify the underlying truth of their financial status.

Date of Decision: 30 September 2026