Wife's Professional Competence, Earning Potential Can't Be Ignored While Deciding Maintenance: Allahabad High Court

A bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh thus reduced the monthly maintenance awarded to a wife under Section 125 CrPC, taking into account the wife's professional qualifications and past employment as a radiologist

The single judge modified a Family Court order, lowering the maintenance amount from Rs 18,000 to Rs 12,000 per month.

Briefly put, the criminal revision petition was filed by the husband, a Subedar in the Indian Army, challenging a February 2025 order passed by the Family Court in Mainpuri directing him to pay his wife, Rs 12K per month from the date she filed her application and an enhanced amount of Rs 18K per month from the date of the impugned order.

Before the HC, the husband's counsel argued that the wife is a highly qualified Radiologist and that she had admittedly worked at a leading Hospital from 2014 to 2020 before leaving the job on her own volition.

The revisionist-husband contended that she filed the maintenance application solely to claim money from him, despite voluntarily leaving the matrimonial home and refusing to reside with him.

In response to this, the wife's counsel defended the Family Court's order by pointing to the husband's monthly salary of about Rs 70,000.

The counsel submitted that mere employment or qualification of the wife cannot be a ground to deny maintenance, particularly when there exists a disparity in the income and status of the parties.

Against the backdrop of these submissions, the bench perused the material on record and noted that the wife is a qualified Radiologist who worked for around 6 years before leaving the job on her own volition.

The Court stressed that it is well settled that the object of granting maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is to ensure that the wife is able to live with dignity and maintain a standard of living reasonably similar to that enjoyed in the matrimonial home.

However, the bench noted that the wife's professional qualifications and past employment in the present case demonstrate that she has substantial earning capacity and is capable of engaging herself in gainful employment.

In such circumstances, the Court said, maintenance cannot be granted, despite the claimant's professional competence and earning potential.

Thus, the bench concluded that the Rs 18K per month awarded by the lower court from the date of the impugned order was excessive.

Hence, partly allowing the criminal revision, the Court reduced the amount to Rs. 12K per month from the date of filing of the application.