Q: Construe the citation of Smt. Archana Gupta & ors Vs Rajeev Gupta, Uttaranchal High Court ?

Ans: In case of Smt. Archana Gupta & ors Vs Rajeev Gupta, Uttaranchal High Court,  it was held by the high court that no maintenance U/s 125 CrPC when wife deserts her husband without reasonable cause and also she is earning. This revision application was filed by the wife challenging the order dated 05.10.2006 passed by Lower court refusing to grant maintenance to her. The High Court after hearing the counsels held the decision that counsel of the wife contended that finding of the Lower Court on issue no. 1 that wife is living separately without any sufficient cause is not right. The high court further held that in the nutshell about the brief facts of the case that wife preferred an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against her husband seeking maintenance for herself and for their minor son. The preeminent grounds of claim mentioned in the application were that husband had developed bad habits like consuming alcohol, gambling as well as adultery. That husband wanted to dispose of House. That husband had taken loan for his bad habits. It was further submitted that husband is living separately and is not maintaining the wife and son. In paragraph no. 8 of the application, it is pleaded that wife is working in inter-college, temporarily from where she is getting Rs. 2200/- per month. Husband filed his written statement before the Lower Court and denied the allegations made by the wife in the application. In defence , the husband has specifically submitted that wife is under the influence of her father. That under the pressure of wife and her father,  husband had to execute permanent lease of his property in favour of the wife pertaining to property of House. It was further submitted that at the time of execution of lease, it was agreed between the couple that from the date of execution of lease wife would start living with the husband and her father would not interfere in the matrimonial affair of the husband and wife. It was further pleaded by the husband that it was the wife who wanted to live separately under the influence of her father. Further case of husband was that she resigned from the service from where she was earnearning Rs. 3,000/- per month and joined the job for Rs. 2200/-p.m, under the influence of her father. It was further submitted by the husband that under the influence of her father, wife neglected the husband. The further case was that wife was residing separately without any reason. The Lower Court, while deciding the issue no. 1, had recorded finding of fact that without any sufficient reason wife was living separately. Wife had denied to join company of husband despite the fact that husband wanted her to live with him. It was further held by the lower court that wife is under the influence of her father and could not prove allegations of bad habits like consumption of alcohol, gambling and adultery against the husband. While deciding the issue nos. 2 and 3, Lower Court rejected the maintenance claim of the wife on the basis of finding recorded in issue no. 1 and on the ground that wife was employed and earning Rs. 2200/- per month. However, lower Court granted Rs. 2000/- per month as maintenance for minor son. The High Court held that after, carefully perused the statements recorded by Lower court, it find nothing wrong in the findings of fact recorded by Lower Court of the fact that wife was living separately without any sufficient reason and she denied to live with her husband without any sufficient cause. In view of findings that wife is residing separately from her husband without reasonable cause and reason, her application seeking maintenance was rightly rejected by the Lower Court. Wife is entitled for maintenance from the husband under Section 125 (1)Cr.P.C., if the wife was unable to maintain herself. As per the submission made by the wife in the application under Section 125 of CrPC and as per the finding recorded by the Lower Court, wife is employed in a school and getting salary of Rs. 2200/- per month. Wife never said that out of this amount of Rs. 2200/-, She is unable to maintain herself. On this ground also, the wife is not entitled for any maintenance from the husband. Having perused the record and findings recorded by the Lower Court, the high court didn’t find any valid reason to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Lower Court and dismissed the Revision. The impugned judgment is hereby confirmed. Revision was dismissed.