S.144 BNSS | Wife Not Disentitled To Claim Maintenance From Husband If Income From Her Temporary Job Insufficient: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that a wife would not be disentitled from claiming maintenance from her husband under Section 125 CrPC/ Section 144 BNSS even if she has a temporary job providing her some income, if she asserts that such income is insufficient.Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath was considering petitions filed by a wife against her husband challenging the quantum of...
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that a wife would not be disentitled from claiming maintenance from her husband under Section 125 CrPC/ Section 144 BNSS even if she has a temporary job providing her some income, if she asserts that such income is insufficient.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath was considering petitions filed by a wife against her husband challenging the quantum of maintenance ordered to her two children and the rejection of her claim by the Family Court. The husband had also challenged the quantum awarded to the children.
The petitioners in the case are the legally wedded wife and two minor children of the respondent. They had approached the Family Court claiming maintenance. The Family Court rejected the wife's claim and awarded Rs. 6000 each to the children.
The husband argued before the High Court that the wife is a tailor and earns income. He also submitted that since a mother is also liable to maintain children as per the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the amount awarded to be paid by him ought to be reduced.
Relying on the various precedents set by the Supreme Court and examining the evidence before it, the Court found that there is no evidence to show that the wife is actually employed or earning income.
It noted that the only evidence made out was that her profession was shown as tailor in the marriage certificate and that she had taken a membership in the tailors' association. Moreover, the wife had deposed that her brother runs a tailoring shop abroad that she occasionally visits. This, the Court felt, was insufficient to reject her maintenance claim.
“The wife's temporary job, even if it provides some income, would not disentitle her to claim maintenance from her husband if she asserts that the said income is insufficient for her maintenance. For these reasons, the finding in the impugned order that the wife is not entitled to claim maintenance from the husband cannot be sustained. The Family Court erred in not awarding maintenance to the wife, who does not have any permanent source of income,” the Court observed.
The Court opined that Section 125 CrPC/Section 144 BNSS is a welfare provision to protect destitute wives, children and aged persons.
The next contention of the husband was that the wife is living separately from him without sufficient reason and therefore, not entitled to maintenance as per Section 125(4) CrPC/Section 144(4) BNSS.
Though the Family Court found that there was nothing on record to prove the allegation of cruelty made out against the husband except for her oral testimony, the High Court felt otherwise.
Since the deposition of the wife was not challenged in cross-examination, the Court felt that this was sufficient to justify her living separately from her husband. But the Court was of the opinion that the amount awarded to the children was sufficient.
Thus, the Court partly allowed the wife's claim by ordering her monthly maintenance of Rs. 8000 and rejected the husband's plea.
Case No: RPFC Nos. 476 & 409 of 2017
Case Title: Rajeevan M. v. Rantin P. and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 773
Counsel for the petitioner in RPFC No. 476/2017: R. Surendran
Counsel for the respondents in RPFC No. 476/2017: K.K. Chandralekha, K.C. Santhoshkumar