Wife's High Qualification No Bar To Maintenance; Hard To Re-Join Workforce After Years Of Domestic Duties: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court recently held that a wife cannot be denied maintenance under Section 125 CrPC merely because she is highly qualified or possesses vocational skills, as this can't lead to the conclusion that revisionist No.1/wife is working for gain.A bench of Justice Garima Prashad also observed that it is misplaced for a husband to rely solely on the qualifications of his wife to...
The Allahabad High Court recently held that a wife cannot be denied maintenance under Section 125 CrPC merely because she is highly qualified or possesses vocational skills, as this can't lead to the conclusion that revisionist No.1/wife is working for gain.
A bench of Justice Garima Prashad also observed that it is misplaced for a husband to rely solely on the qualifications of his wife to evade his legal obligation to maintain her. The Court added that the wife's mere potential to earn is distinct from actual gainful employment.
Importantly, the bench emphasised that this is a reality faced by many women, who, despite their education, find it difficult to join the workforce after years of domestic duties and childcare responsibilities.
With these observations, the bench set aside an order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr, rejecting the wife's application moved under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance from the husband.
Case in brief
The Family Court had rejected the wife's plea for maintenance on the grounds that she had concealed her professional education from the Court and had not approached the Court with clean hands.
The family court was also of the view that the wife (revisionist no.1) was living separately without any sufficient cause and that she had refused to return to the matrimonial home despite proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Restitution of Conjugal Rights)
The Family Court had, however, directed that an amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month be paid to the revisionist no.2 (minor son) from the date of filing of the petition.
Before the HC, the wife's counsel argued that she had no source of income and that the opposite party No.2/husband had failed to produce any proof that his wife had been working and was gainfully employed.
The husband, on the other hand, contended that his wife (revisionist No. 1) is highly qualified, is currently employed as a private teacher, holds an ITI diploma in tailoring and she also earns income by providing tuition to children.
High Court's observations
At the outset, Justice Prashad strongly disapproved of the Family Court's reasoning as it noted that mere filing of a petition for restitution of conjugal rights by the husband would not, by itself, be sufficient to attract the disqualification under Section 125(4) CrPC.
The bench noted that the wife might have left the matrimonial home due to the ill treatment and that there was also no specific finding regarding the wife's proof of gainful employment.
The bench further observed that the statutory right of the wife to get maintenance from her husband cannot be infringed by setting up a case that she had the capacity to earn.
It added that the fact that the wife could work or could earn some money is not the end of the matter, and neither the mere potential to earn, nor the actual earning, however meagre it may be, is sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance.
“The revisionist No.1/wife could have the capacity to earn from tailoring, which may not be sufficient to support livelihood of the revisionist No.1/wife, and afford her to maintain the same standard of living which she will get if she was residing with the opposite party No.2. Thus, the revisionist No.1/wife is entitled to maintenance from the opposite party No.2 even if the revisionist has the capacity to work,” the bench remarked.
In an observation regarding the challenges women face, the Court further stated:
“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. It is, therefore, misplaced for a husband to rely solely on the qualification of his wife to evade his legal obligation to maintain her”.
The Court also noted that when marital discord arises, the very sacrifice is often portrayed as a devilish act intended to extract money from the husband.
“Such sweeping assumptions are not only unfair but deeply insensitive to the social and emotional realities that women face”, the Judge said.
The Court also acknowledged that an unemployed wife's situation, who has to single-handedly care for her young child, reflects the “reality faced by many women, who, despite their education, find it difficult to join the workforce after years of domestic duties”.
Furthermore, the High Court termed Rs. 3,000 awarded to the adolescent son as a 'meagre' amount and noted that the boy requires support to study and grow in a healthy environment.
Thus, the HC set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Family Court, Bulandshahr, for passing a fresh, reasoned order within one month.
The family court has been directed the determine maintenance for both the wife and the son based on the husband's gross income and the principles of social justice embedded in Section 125 CrPC.
Case title - Suman Verma and another vs. State of U.P. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 17
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 17