Mere Employment Of Wife No Ground To Deny Maintenance: Allahabad HC Notes 'Disparity' In Earning Capacity, Rejects Husband's Plea

The bench noted that the income attributed to the wife cannot be said to be sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living to which she was accustomed during her matrimonial life.

"The object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not merely to prevent destitution, but to ensure that the wife is able to live with dignity, consistent with the status of the husband,” the Court remarked.

A bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh added that mere employment or earning of the wife is, by itself, no ground to deny maintenance.

Briefly put, the revisionist-husband approached the High Court seeking to set aside an order passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Ghaziabad. The Family Court directed him to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to his wife as maintenance from the date of the application.

Before the HC, the husband contended that the amount was unjustified as the wife is an educated, working woman who is financially independent.

In support of this submission, his counsel placed reliance on an Income Tax Return/Form-16 of May 2018, which indicated that the wife's annual credited salary was Rs. 11,28,780.

Furthermore, it was urged that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home, she was unwilling to discharge her matrimonial obligations and she had even refused to reside with the husband's aged parents.

Regarding his own financial capacity, he submitted that he was compelled to leave his employment as he had care for his ailing parents and he was currently burdened with financial liabilities, due to which he had no sufficient means to pay the maintenance.

On the other hand, the counsel for the wife submitted that the revisionist-husband had not disclosed his true income and standard of living before the Court.

It was submitted that, according to the revisionist's statement recorded before the trial court, he admitted that between April 2018 and April 2020, he was employed by JPMorgan and was drawing an annual package of approximately Rs. 40 lakhs.

It was further contended that the mere employment of the wife cannot be a ground to deny maintenance, particularly when there exists a glaring disparity in the income and status of the parties.

Justice Singh noted that the husband had not placed any cogent evidence on record to demonstrate a commensurate reduction in his earning capacity.

Regarding the wife's income, the Court stated that, even assuming the wife has some source of income, the record clearly reflects a "substantial disparity" in the parties' earning capacity and financial status.

The Bench remarked that the income attributed to the wife could not be said to be sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living to which she was accustomed during her matrimonial life.

Regarding husband's alleged financial constraints and liabilities, the Court termed the same as a "bald assertion" as it noted that no convincing or reliable material had been placed on record to establish that he lacked sufficient means to relieve him of his statutory obligation.

Against this backdrop, the bench concluded that the maintenance awarded by the Family court appeared just, reasonable and commensurate with the status and earning capacity of the revisionist.

Finding that the impugned order did not suffer from any perversity, illegality or material irregularity warranting interference, the Court dismissed the criminal revision.