Justice Prem Narayan Singh remarked that marriage does not prohibit a woman from seeking employment, and the maintenance she receives should not discourage her from earning a livelihood.
Madhya Pradesh: The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Tuesday(10th Sept) noted that well-educated women should not be inactive or solely dependent on their husband’s maintenance.
Justice Prem Narayan Singh remarked that marriage does not prohibit a woman from seeking employment, and the maintenance she receives should not discourage her from earning a livelihood.
The court emphasized that “a well-qualified spouse should not remain idle or rely solely on maintenance from their husband.” It further stated that Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) was not intended to create a situation where individuals are passively awaiting maintenance from their spouse’s income.
In a hearing concerning criminal revision petitions filed by a husband and wife, the case started after from a family court’s decision that directed the husband to pay Rs 60,000 monthly to his wife. The wife had initially sought maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), alleging harassment by her husband, who was employed in a senior position at a bank in Dubai.
The husband, on the other hand, claimed that she had chosen to live separately without just cause and had a history of quarrelling. He further argued that she had also worked at a bank in Dubai and was now running a coaching center and beauty parlor, thereby earning her own income.
Both parties contested the family court’s maintenance ruling: the wife argued the amount was insufficient, while the husband sought a reduction, stating he had lost his job due to a false complaint from her.
After reviewing the case, the Court expressed doubt about the husband’s claim of unemployment in Dubai. However, it also noted that the wife, with a Master’s degree in commerce and a diploma in shipping and trading, had the capacity to earn a good income. The Court clarified that excessive maintenance should not be granted in such circumstances, stating that she was capable of supporting herself through work or business.
As a result, the Court reduced the maintenance from Rs 60,000 to Rs 40,000. Advocate Rajat Raghuwanshi represented the husband, while Advocate Syed Asif Ali Warsi represented the wife.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
