Educated Wife Not Earning Sufficient Income Entitled To Maintenance; Parents' Property Or Pension Does Not Count: Allahabad High Court

A bench of Justice Garima Prashad further observed that the pension or properties of the wife's parents cannot be treated as the independent income of the wife and does not end the husband's legal obligation to maintain his wife.

With these observations, the Single Judge dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by the husband, challenging the Family Court's judgment and order directing him to pay Rs. 20K per month as maintenance to his wife (opposite party no.2).

Case in brief 

It was the primary contention of the revisionist that his wife is an educated, employable, and financially independent lady with sufficient means to maintain herself and, thus, is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

It was submitted that she earns from tuition and coaching work and is also supported by her mother's pension and properties.

The revisionist-husband also submitted that he is himself not in regular employment and is burdened with the responsibility of maintaining his aged parents and hence, the maintenance amount decided by the Family Court is excessive and disproportionate.

He also alleged that her mother is a retired Headmistress receiving a pension and that her family's properties had been sold for substantial consideration.

Conversely, the wife argued that the revisionist is a qualified Chartered Accountant, has worked at various places, has undertaken consultancy work, and has failed to produce his income tax returns and complete financial documents.

It was also submitted that the revisionist had produced no reliable evidence to establish that she has an independent income sufficient for her maintenance.

High Court's order

Against the backdrop of these submissions, the bench, at the outset, upheld the Family Court's findings that the wife had sufficient reason to reside separately and that the revisionist had neglected her.

Before delving into the financial aspects, the Court examined whether the wife had sufficient cause to reside separately.

It took note of the husband's continuous pressure on the wife and her widowed mother for Rs. 25 lakhs to purchase a flat, contradictory explanations regarding the wife's physical injuries, and his baseless allegations regarding her mental condition and character to uphold the findings of the Family Court that the wife had sufficient reason to reside separately and that the revisionist had neglected her.  

Regarding the financial capacity of the revisionist and the correctness of the quantum of maintenance awarded, the bench took note of the husband's qualification as a Chartered Accountant.

The Court observed that he has professional experience, has worked with companies, has undertaken consultancy work, has admittedly worked at different places, has maintained a car, and has incurred expenditure on air travel and hotel stays.

Considering his lifestyle and his 2017 admission that he earns Rs. 90,000 per month, the bench concluded that he maintains a standard of living above ordinary means and has the financial capacity to support his wife in a reasonable manner.

The Court also drew an adverse inference against the husband for withholding the best evidence, such as his income tax returns and bank statements.  

The Court noted that although the husband pleaded that the wife is highly educated (M.Sc. and B.Ed.) and earns from coaching or tuition work, he could not bring cogent evidence on record to prove that his wife was actually employed or earning income sufficient for her maintenance.

The Court clarified that the mere fact that the opposite party, No. 2, is educated cannot disentitle her from maintenance.

"Education and earning capacity are relevant considerations, but they cannot be equated with actual and sufficient income. In proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the test is whether the wife is able to maintain herself in the manner contemplated by law. A wife cannot be denied maintenance merely because she is qualified, when there is no evidence that she is actually earning sufficient income", the bench remarked.

The bench also added that reliance placed by the revisionist upon the pension or properties of the wife's mother is misplaced, as they do not constitute the independent income of the wife and they do not end the husband's legal obligation to maintain her.

The Court stressed that the maintenance amount must be determined having regard to the status of the parties, reasonable needs of the wife, income and liabilities of the husband, and the standard of living enjoyed by the wife in the matrimonial home.

“The object of Section 125 CrPC is to prevent destitution and vagrancy and to ensure that a wife who is unable to maintain herself is not left without means of support,” it observed.

Thus, noting that the revisionist has sufficient means and the wife has no independent income, the bench upheld the judgment and order of the Family court awarding Rs. 20K as maintenance for the wife.