Even Highly Qualified Persons Not Getting Jobs Due To Rising Unemployment: Bombay High Court Says Educated Wife Can't Be Denied Maintenance
The Bombay High Court recently while dealing with case pertaining to the payment of monthly maintenance to a wife, took judicial note of the rising unemployment and observed that even the highly educated persons are jobless and thus, even if a woman is highly educated she cannot be denied maintenance. Sitting at the Nagpur seat, single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke while dismissing...
The Bombay High Court recently while dealing with case pertaining to the payment of monthly maintenance to a wife, took judicial note of the rising unemployment and observed that even the highly educated persons are jobless and thus, even if a woman is highly educated she cannot be denied maintenance.
Sitting at the Nagpur seat, single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke while dismissing a husband's argument that his wife has studied upto post graduation and is an able-bodied person and thus, can maintain herself.
"Admittedly, it is not the case of the husband that the wife is serving any where or earning something. The judicial note can be taken that in the present era, there is unemployment. Even the person who has obtained the higher degree and specialisation etc, they are also unable to get the jobs. Therefore, merely because she is educated lady is not sufficient to hold that she is able-bodied person and able to maintain herself as she has competed her post-graduation," Justice Joshi-Phalke held in the order pronounced on April 17.
The object of the maintenance proceedings, the judge explained, is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves. The phrase 'unable to maintain herself' the judge said, would mean that means available to the deserted wife while she was living with him and would not take within itself the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive somehow.
"Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves," the judge opined.
The observations were made while disposing of a husband's revision application who challenged the order of a Family Court which had ordered him to pay Rs 10,000 and Rs 5,000 to his estranged wife and daughter, respectively, from October 2017 till December 2020 and the amount was further enhanced to Rs 12,000 and Rs 7,000 from January 2021 till December 2023. The husband was further ordered to pay Rs 15,000 to Rs 10,000 to the wife and daughter from January 2024 onwards.
The husband had challenged this order citing a separate order passed in his plea to dissolve the marriage, wherein the Family Court had ordered him to pay Rs 10,000 and Rs 5,000 to the wife and the daughter, respectively.
However, after taking the facts and circumstances of the instant case into consideration, Justice Joshi-Phalke ordered the husband to pay Rs 12,000 and Rs 7,000 to the wife and the daughter, from the period after December 2023. This, the bench clarified would be in addition to the separate maintenance ordered by the Family Court in the divorce proceedings.
With these observations, the bench disposed of the plea.
Appearance:
Advocate Vishwadeep Mate appeared for the Husband.
Advocate Jyoti Dharmadhikari represented the Wife.
Case Title: HRBK vs LRRK (Criminal Revision Application 113 of 2024)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 263