The Court made the following crucial statement:”Thus, the law is well settled that even if a wife has the capability to earn or is earning something, it does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance from her husband. The test is whether the wife is able to maintain herself more or less in the status in which her husband has maintained her. The wife is entitled to live the same standard of life as she lived along with the husband,” the Court stated.
Kerala: The Kerala High Court recently ruled that a wife’s temporary job and income from it do not disqualify her from seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Justice Kauser Edappagath, while delivering the judgment, referred to earlier decisions from the Supreme Court and emphasized that a wife, regardless of her employment or income, is entitled to maintenance if her earnings do not support the standard of living she enjoyed while living with her husband.
ALSO READ: BREAKING | “Divorced Muslim Woman can Claim Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC”: SC
The court made it clear that the purpose of maintenance is not to punish the husband but to ensure that the wife continues to enjoy the same quality of life.
The Court made the following crucial statement:
“Thus, the law is well settled that even if a wife has the capability to earn or is earning something, it does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance from her husband. The test is whether the wife is able to maintain herself more or less in the status in which her husband has maintained her. The wife is entitled to live the same standard of life as she lived along with the husband,” the Court stated.
In this case, the wife had filed for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, even though she had a temporary job. The court noted that her income was insufficient to meet her needs and those of her dependent daughter. Despite the wife’s employment, she was still unable to maintain the lifestyle she had while living with her husband. Therefore, the court allowed her plea for maintenance.
Background
The wife and her elder daughter first approached the family court, seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.45,000 each from the husband, who worked in the Merchant Navy. They claimed to have no income, but the husband disagreed and argued that the wife was employed at Matsyafed and the daughter was an adult, thus not entitled to maintenance.
The family court denied the maintenance claim, citing the wife’s monthly salary of Rs.21,175 and the daughter’s eligibility issues due to her age. However, the court ordered the husband to hand over certain insurance policy certificates.
Both parties were dissatisfied with the family court’s decision and filed revision petitions in the Kerala High Court. The wife’s lawyer argued that the husband, who was a former Merchant Navy captain, earned Rs.9 lakh per month and had a responsibility to support them. He also pointed out that the wife’s employment was temporary and contractual, not a permanent source of income.
On the other hand, the husband argued that his wife had stable employment and that his financial burden included supporting their younger daughter, who lived with him. He also claimed that he was no longer in service and relied only on his pension.
The court emphasized that a woman living separately with a dependent daughter in a rented house is entitled to claim maintenance, even if she has temporary employment.
The key factor is whether the income from the job is enough to meet her basic needs. The court pointed out that despite her temporary job, the wife’s income was insufficient to support herself and her daughter.
“The wife’s temporary job, even if it provides some income, would not disentitle her to claim maintenance from her husband if she asserts that the said income is insufficient for her maintenance,” the Court added.
The court also examined the financial situation of both parties. It noted that the husband, an experienced sailor, had the potential to earn a substantial income and had failed to provide concrete evidence of his inability to support his family.
“The husband who is capable of earning could not evade his lawful duty of maintaining his wife merely by stating that he is not presently employed. An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning enough to support his family unless he can prove genuine inability with concrete evidence,” the Court observed.
The court also dealt with the issue of maintenance for the daughter. The court clarified the difference between Section 125 CrPC and Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA), 1956. Under Section 125 CrPC, a father is not obligated to maintain an adult unmarried daughter, unless she is physically or mentally disabled. However, under Section 20(3) of HAMA, a father is required to maintain an unmarried daughter who cannot support herself.
Since the wife and daughter did not specifically claim maintenance under HAMA, the court ruled that the daughter was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The daughter could, however, approach the family court under HAMA for maintenance.
The Kerala High Court set aside the family court’s order denying maintenance to the wife and directed the matter back to the family court for reconsideration of the quantum of maintenance. The court upheld the family court’s order regarding the insurance policy certificates.
Advocates Jacob P Alex, Joseph P Alex, Manu Sankar P, and Amal Amir Ali represented the wife and daughter in this case. Advocate Jayaprakash EP appeared in person for the respondent.
Case Title:
Jayaprakash EP v Sheney & anr
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
