The Allahabad High Court rules that a wife’s education or potential earning capacity cannot deny her right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The judgment reinforces women’s financial rights and ensures dignity after marital separation.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: In a crucial reaffirmation of women’s maintenance rights, the Allahabad High Court has ruled that a wife’s educational qualifications or alleged earning capacity cannot, by themselves, be grounds to deny maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Setting aside an order of the Family Court, Justice Garima Prashad held that neither potential earning capacity nor unproven claims of employment absolve a husband of his statutory duty to maintain his wife.
Background of the Case
The case arose out of a criminal revision challenging a Family Court order passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr. The Family Court had:
- Rejected maintenance to the wife, holding that she was capable of sustaining herself due to her education and vocational qualifications.
- Granted ₹3,000 per month as maintenance to the minor son only, despite the husband’s admitted salary exceeding ₹48,000 per month.
The wife contended that she had been subjected to physical and mental cruelty, forced to leave the matrimonial home, and had no independent source of income. She sought enhancement of maintenance for herself and her adolescent son.
Family Court’s Reasoning
The Family Court had denied maintenance to the wife primarily on the grounds:
- She was educated and had vocational training.
- She had refused to return to the matrimonial home despite the restitution proceedings.
- She had not filed criminal complaints alleging cruelty or dowry harassment.
The High Court found this approach to be legally flawed and socially insensitive.
Observations of the Allahabad High Court
Justice Garima Prashad made several crucial observations while overturning the Family Court’s order:
1. Education Does Not Mean Financial Independence
The Court categorically held:
“Merely because a woman is educated or has the capacity to earn does not mean that she is actually gainfully employed or capable of maintaining herself.”
It noted that no material evidence had been produced by the husband to prove that the wife was employed or earning a definite income.
2. Social Reality of Women’s Lives Recognised
In strong and empathetic language, the Court observed:
“It is a matter of social reality that women devote themselves to domestic responsibilities and take care of children and are unable to be gainfully employed.”
The Court cautioned against portraying a woman’s sacrifices within marriage as a “devilish act intended to extract money from the husband,” calling such assumptions deeply insensitive to social and emotional realities.
3. Refusal to Resume Cohabitation Not Automatic Disqualification
Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that:
- Refusal to resume marital life, even after proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, does not automatically disqualify a wife from claiming maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC.
- The absence of criminal complaints alleging cruelty or dowry demand cannot be used to infer that the wife left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause.
4. Husband’s Conduct Criticised
The Court took serious note of the husband’s conduct in denying the paternity of the minor child, describing it as an attempt to evade maintenance obligations. Such conduct, the Court said, compounded the suffering of the wife and child.
5. Maintenance Must Ensure Dignity, Not Mere Survival
On the issue of quantum, the Court found the award of ₹3,000 per month to an adolescent child to be meagre, particularly considering the husband’s admitted gross salary of over ₹48,000 per month.
Reiterating the principles laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) and Shamina Faruqi v. Shahid Khan (2015), the Court emphasised that:
- Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice.
- Maintenance must ensure dignity and a standard of living comparable to the matrimonial home, not mere subsistence.
The Allahabad High Court:
- Set aside the impugned Family Court order
- Remanded the matter to the Family Court for fresh determination of maintenance payable to both the wife and the minor son
- Directed the Family Court to pass a reasoned order within one month, keeping in view settled legal principles
Case Title:
Smt. Suman Verma and another vs. State of U.P. and another
CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 5971 of 2024
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read More Reports on Maintenance
