Kerala High Court ruled that an unemployed, highly qualified wife cannot be denied maintenance merely for her earning potential. Section 125 CrPC ensures actual inability to sustain, granting maintenance until she earns enough to support herself, said the court.
The Kerala High Court affirmed that a woman who possesses a high level of education but is unemployed cannot be denied maintenance from her husband solely based on her potential to earn.
Justice Kauser Edappagath asserted that such a woman is entitled to receive maintenance until she can support herself financially.
This ruling came as the court upheld a family court’s decision requiring a husband to provide monthly maintenance for his wife and minor daughter.
Justice Edappagath emphasized that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is a provision focused on social justice, aimed at safeguarding destitute wives and dependent children or parents.
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 in India deals with maintenance. It is a legal provision that allows certain persons who cannot maintain themselves to claim financial support from their relatives. The main objective is to prevent destitution and ensure that individuals are not forced to beg. It is a civil remedy under criminal law and applies to wives, children, and parents.
According to this section, a husband with sufficient means is legally obligated to support his wife if she is unable to maintain herself.
The court clarified that even if a woman has degrees or professional qualifications, she can still be deemed unable to sustain herself if she is not earning enough to live with dignity.
The Court said,
“The expression ‘unable to maintain’ in Section 125 of Cr.P.C must be interpreted to mean the actual inability to sustain rather than mere potential earning capacity. The expression does not mean mere capacity or capability to earn. So much so, a highly qualified wife, if not working and earning, cannot be denied maintenance on the ground that she has the capacity to earn. In other words, a highly qualified jobless wife is entitled to maintenance until she secures sufficient means to support herself,”
The case originated when the wife filed a maintenance petition in family court, seeking Rs.15,000 for herself and Rs.7,000 for her daughter.
The husband contested this, arguing that his wife, being a qualified B.Ed and MA graduate, was capable of earning a livelihood and claimed she had left him and was living separately without justification.
However, the family court rejected his arguments, ordering him to pay Rs.6,000 and Rs.4,500 in monthly maintenance to his wife and daughter, respectively. The husband subsequently appealed to the High Court, questioning the family court’s ruling.
The High Court noted that the husband failed to provide evidence supporting his claim that the wife had left him without good reason. It highlighted that the family court found that the husband’s brother and sister-in-law had moved into their home, which strained the husband’s relationship with his wife.
Thus, the court concluded that the wife’s choice to live separately was justified.
The Court added,
“A separated life of a wife for a valid cause is recognised by law, and that will not stand in the way of raising a claim for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C (Section 144 of BNSS),”
Citing Supreme Court precedents, it stressed the need for a realistic evaluation of whether the wife could maintain a comparable standard of living to what she enjoyed while living with her husband.
The court also disagreed with a recent Delhi High Court ruling, which suggested that an educated wife who remained unemployed could not seek maintenance.
Justice Edappagath warned that such a view would undermine the social welfare objectives of Section 125 CrPC.
With the husband earning Rs.66,900 per month and having adequate means to support his wife and daughter, the court upheld the family court’s ruling and dismissed the husband’s appeal.
The husband was represented by advocates Ajit G Anjarlekar, Govind Padmanaabhan, and GP Shinod, while the wife was represented by advocate RB Rajesh.
Read Attachment
Click Here to Read More Reports on Maintenance
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
