Educated wife entitled to maintenance despite earning capacity, rules Allahabad HC
Prayagraj, May 12: The Allahabad High Court observed that merely because a wife is educated or has earning capacity, she cannot be barred from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.
The bench of Justice Garima Prasad said that what needs to be considered is whether she has the actual and present capacity to support herself, that too according to the same standard of living she enjoyed in her marital home.
The court also said that unless it is proved that she is gainfully employed and earning sufficient income to support herself, the husband cannot escape his legal responsibility. Importantly, the bench also clarified that the right to maintenance should be assessed based on the husband’s social and economic status, not solely on the wife’s previous earnings or educational qualifications.
The court issued this order while hearing a criminal revision petition filed by a wife. In this petition, the wife challenged the decision and order of the Agra Family Court, which had ordered her to pay ₹15,000 as maintenance. The petitioner sought an increase in this amount.
The two parties were married in August 2014. The petitioner-wife alleged that within a month of their marriage, she was thrown out of her marital home due to unlawful dowry demands. She claimed that her husband (respondent No. 2) abandoned her without any justifiable reason. Despite having sufficient income, he did not provide her with any maintenance. The husband, on the other hand, claimed that the petitioner abandoned her without any justifiable reason and treated her cruelly.
The husband argued before the High Court that since his wife, Komal Lakhani, is highly educated, holds an MBA degree, and was gainfully employed before marriage, she has the potential to earn over ₹50,000 per month. He further claimed that he himself earns only ₹15,000 to ₹20,000 per month. He also has the responsibility of supporting his elderly mother.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, the bench noted that the expression “unable to support oneself” does not necessarily mean that the wife is completely destitute. Despite the wife’s earning capacity, the husband’s obligation to provide for her remains. Furthermore, the court held that the husband’s claims of his own financial inability were highly questionable. The court took into account her lavish lifestyle, her education in Canada, and her association with an educational consultancy.
The court also believed that her reluctance to produce complete financial records and her evasive answers regarding business properties raised serious doubts about the veracity of her claimed income. Therefore, the bench concluded that, given the socio-economic status of both parties, the award of a monthly amount of ₹15,000 was neither just nor reasonable.
Thus, while allowing the criminal revision, the single judge remanded the matter to the family court to re-determine the amount of maintenance within six months. In the meantime, the husband was directed to pay all outstanding dues and continue regular payments until the issue is re-adjudicated.
