Wife's Masters Degree, Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Can't Be Grounds To Deny Maintenance U/S 125 CrPC: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that a claim for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC cannot be denied to a wife merely because her earlier claim for permanent alimony was rejected in divorce proceedings, or on the grounds that she holds an educational qualification that might allow her to earn a livelihood. Justice Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha allowed the revision petition filed by a wife against...
The Karnataka High Court has held that a claim for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC cannot be denied to a wife merely because her earlier claim for permanent alimony was rejected in divorce proceedings, or on the grounds that she holds an educational qualification that might allow her to earn a livelihood.
Justice Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha allowed the revision petition filed by a wife against a family court order that had granted maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC only to the couple's minor child while rejecting her claim.
“In the proceedings initiated under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi, gave a finding that petitioner No.1 is not entitled for maintenance from respondent as her claim for Rs.10,00,000/- towards permanent alimony was rejected and that she has not challenged that order. It was also observed that Petitioner No.1 whose educational qualification is M.A. may earn for her livelihood,” the Court observed.
It added, “It is not the case of even respondent that petitioner No.1 is a working woman. Thus, only because she holds M.A. degree, maintenance cannot be denied to her. Also as earlier indicated, permanent alimony was not granted to petitioner No.1 only because she failed to establish the financial capability and status of the respondent/husband. Therefore, this Court is of the view that Family Court ought not to have rejected her claim for maintenance in the proceedings initiated by her under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Court is of the view that petitioner No.1 is entitled to claim maintenance from respondent/husband.”
The petitioner-wife had earlier filed for dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty and desertion, seeking permanent alimony of Rs 10 lakh. The family court granted the divorce but rejected the plea for the permanent alimony stating that she had failed to prove the husband's financial capability to pay that amount.
Subsequently, the wife and her minor son filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC, seeking monthly maintenance of Rs 20,000 and Rs 10,000 respectively. The family court awarded Rs 5,000 per month to the minor son while rejecting the wife's claim on the ground that her earlier claim for permanent alimony had been rejected. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Noting that the petitioner had failed to produce evidence regarding the respondent's financial status to substantiate her claim for Rs 20,000 per month, the Court said, “As per the submission of learned counsel for respondent, respondent is working as Assistant Accountant in a private company and he earns Rs.29,000/- per month. Thus, taking into consideration the financial status of respondent and also the fact that through the impugned order, respondent was directed to pay petitioner No.2 a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance, this Court considers desirable to direct respondent to pay petitioner No.1 also a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance.”
Accordingly, the High Court directed the respondent to pay Rs 5,000 each to the wife and minor son monthly for maintenance.
Case: X & another vs Rajesh
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100065 OF 2025