Anu Aggarwal vs Sushant Aggarwal , HC of P&H as on 13/01/2026
CHANDIGARH – The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has dismissed a revision petition filed by a wife seeking maintenance, observing that the legal provision under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is intended to prevent destitution and cannot be used as a tool for “unjust enrichment”.
Case Background
The petitioner, Anu Aggarwal, moved the High Court to challenge an order dated July 8, 2025, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kurukshetra. The lower court had previously dismissed her application for maintenance after finding that she had suppressed material facts regarding her employment and financial status.
+4
Suppression of Facts and Financial Capacity
During the proceedings, Justice Alok Jain noted significant discrepancies in the petitioner’s claims. While she argued she was dependent on her father, evidence revealed a different reality:
- Employment: The petitioner was found to be an employee of Markanda Oil Store, where she availed medical insurance benefits. Additionally, she had worked as a teacher at St. Joseph School, Ambala City, a fact she failed to disclose in her income affidavit.
+3
- Substantial Assets: The Court highlighted that the petitioner holds a Public Provident Fund (PPF) account and Kisan Vikas Patras with a combined balance exceeding Rs. 15 lakhs.
- Qualifications: It was observed that the petitioner is highly qualified, holding degrees in B.Ed., M.A. (Hindi), and M.A. (Art and Craft), and has been gainfully employed throughout the period of separation.
Attempt to Mislead the Court
The Court also took a stern view of the petitioner’s claim regarding the adoption of her sister’s daughter. It was revealed during cross-examination that the respondent-husband had never consented to the adoption, and no documentary evidence or legal formalities were produced to support the claim. The Court termed this a “mala fide intent” to seek “undue sympathy”.
Legal Precedents and Ruling
In reaching its conclusion, the High Court relied on landmark Supreme Court rulings:
- Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008): Established that a wife with sufficient independent income is not entitled to maintenance.
- Rajnesh v. Neha (2021): Emphasized the necessity of full disclosure of assets and clarified that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure to prevent vagrancy, not a source of profit.
Justice Jain remarked that litigants must approach the Court with “clean hands, a clean mind, and a clean objective”. Finding no infirmity in the Trial Court’s decision, the High Court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any financial distress.
