2025:HHC:29391 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 818 of 2025 Date of Decision: 29.8.2025. Manmohan Singh Chandel ...Petitioner Versus Mamta and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Jagat Pal, Advocate. For Respondents : None. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (Oral) Present respondents No.1 to 3 filed an application before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court) under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for seeking maintenance at the rate of ₹20,000/- each). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they are arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:29391 2. The present petitioner (respondent before the learned Trial Court) approached this Court for quashing the proceedings on the ground that the applicant No. 1 is posted as Nursing Officer and is drawing a salary of ₹1,50,000/- per month. The educational expenses of applicants No.2 and 3 are being borne by the Government. The proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court amount to the abuse of the process of the Court and have been instituted to harass the petitioner, as the applicants are residing in Delhi. Hence the petition. 3. Mr. Jagat Pal, learned counsel for the original petitioner/respondent, submitted that applicant No.1 is posted as a Nursing Officer. She is getting a salary of ₹ 1,50,000/- and reimbursement for the expenses of her children's education from the Government. Therefore, she is not entitled to maintain the application for maintenance before the learned Trial Court. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court be set aside. 4. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 3 2025:HHC:29391 5. The present petition proceeds on the basis that the wife, who is gainfully employed, cannot file an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 : (2021) 2 SCC (Civ) 220: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 903 that if the wife is earning, that cannot operate as a bar to being awarded maintenance by the husband. It was observed at page 374: “90. The courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar to being awarded maintenance by the husband. The courts have provided guidance on this issue in the following judgments: 90.1. In Shailja v. Khobbanna [Shailja v. Khobbanna, (2018) 12 SCC 199 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 308; See also the decision of the Karnataka High Court in P. Suresh v. S. Deepa, 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 8848: 2016 Cri LJ 4794 (Kar)], this Court held that merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The court has to determine whether the income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home. [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] Sustenance does not mean, and cannot be allowed to mean, mere survival. [Vipul Lakhanpal v. Pooja Sharma, 2015 SCC OnLine HP 1252: 2015 Cri LJ 3451] 90.2. In Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha [Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 753 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 589] the wife had a postgraduate degree and was employed as a teacher in Jabalpur. The husband raised a contention that since the wife had sufficient income, she would not require financial assistance from the husband. The Supreme Court repelled 4 2025:HHC:29391 this contention and held that merely because the wife was earning some income, it could not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance. 90.3. The Bombay High Court in Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale [Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 694] while relying upon the judgment in Sunita Kachwaha [Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 753 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 589], held that neither the mere potential to earn, nor the actual earning of the wife, howsoever meagre, is sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance. 90.4. An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family, as held by the Delhi High Court in Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani [Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani, 1968 SCC OnLine Del 52: AIR 1968 Del 174]. The onus is on the husband to establish with the necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the court. 90.5. This Court in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan [Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 274 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 785] cited the judgment in Chander Parkash [Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani, 1968 SCC OnLine Del 52: AIR 1968 Del 174] with approval, and held that the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance stands on a higher pedestal than the wife. 6. Hence, the petition cannot be dismissed on the ground that the wife is employed. 5 2025:HHC:29391 7. Further, the mere fact that certain amounts are being paid to the children will not mean that they cannot seek the maintenance for the remaining amount if it is found that the amount is not sufficient to maintain them. It was laid down in Rajnesh (supra) that even if the wife is working, the primary responsibility to pay maintenance lies with the husband. It was observed at page 375: (d) Maintenance of minor children 91. The living expenses of the child would include expenses for food, clothing, residence, medical expenses, education of children. Extra coaching classes or any other vocational training courses to complement the basic education must be factored in, while awarding child support. Albeit, it should be a reasonable amount to be awarded for extracurricular/coaching classes, and not an overly extravagant amount, which may be claimed. 92. Education expenses of the children must normally be borne by the father. If the wife is working and earning sufficiently, the expenses may be shared proportionately between the parties. 8. It is a question of fact whether the amount being earned by applicant No.1 and the amount being paid towards the educational expenses of applicants No.2 and 3 are sufficient to maintain them or not. This question is to be decided by the learned Trial Court by leading the evidence. The relationship 6 2025:HHC:29391 between the parties is not disputed. Hence, the applicants, being the wife and children of the present petitioner, have a right to maintain the petition for maintenance, and the petitioner cannot seek the dismissal of the same at a preliminary stage on the ground that the wife is earning something and she cannot approach the Court. 9. It has been submitted that another petition under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act has also been filed by the applicants; however, the filing of another petition does not have any bearing on the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra) 10. Thus, no case is made out for quashing the proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court. Hence, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed. 11. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 29th August 2025 (Chander)