Kerala High Court rules that a wife cannot be denied maintenance simply because she is capable of earning. Even if she works occasionally, she is entitled to financial support if her income is insufficient for her and her children.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KERALA: In a landmark observation, the Kerala High Court recently clarified that a woman cannot be denied maintenance from her husband merely because she is capable of earning an income or engages in occasional work. This ruling reinforces the legal principle that a wife’s entitlement to maintenance depends on her actual ability to support herself, not just her potential to earn.
Background of the Case
The case involved a woman seeking maintenance from her estranged husband. While she had tailoring skills and occasionally worked at her brother’s shop, she claimed she did not have a steady source of income sufficient to support herself and her two children.
The family court had earlier ordered maintenance of ₹6,000 each for their children but refused to grant her any maintenance, reasoning that she was capable of earning. Aggrieved, she approached the High Court for relief.
Legal Precedents Cited
The High Court relied on several Supreme Court rulings to clarify the law:
- Shailja & Another v. Khobbanna (2018) – Distinguished between a wife who is earning enough to support herself and one who is merely capable of earning but not earning sufficient income.
- Rajnesh v. Neha & Another (2021) – Affirmed that a working wife is not automatically barred from claiming maintenance if her income is inadequate.
- Sunita Kachwaha & Others v. Anil Kachwaha (2014) – Reiterated that even earning wives may claim maintenance if their income is insufficient.
- Jayaprakash E.P. v. Sheney P. (2025) – Emphasized that the capability to earn does not disentitle a wife from maintenance claims.
Court Observations
The High Court stressed that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now replaced by Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) should be interpreted liberally to ensure the protection of wives, children, and elders.
Key observations included:
- The wife’s occasional income from temporary work does not bar her from claiming maintenance.
- The husband failed to provide evidence of the wife’s steady income.
- Allegations of cruelty by the husband, which were unchallenged, justified her decision to live separately.
The Kerala High Court set aside the family court’s decision denying maintenance to the wife and ordered the husband to pay ₹8,000 per month to her. However, the court did not enhance the maintenance already being paid for the children.
Appearance:
For the husband: Advocate R Surendran
For the wife and children: Advocates KC Santhosh Kumar and KK Chandralekha
Case Title:
RAJEEVAN.M Versus RANTHIN. P & Ors.
RPFC NO. 476 OF 2017
READ ORDER
Click Here to Read More Reports on Maintenance