Wife Must Use 10% Of Maintenance Amount For Skill Development To Become Financially Independent: Punjab & Haryana High Court

While refusing to enhance maintenance granted to a wife, the Punjab & Haryana High Court directed her to use 10% of the maintenance being received by her for skill development. The bench reasoned that object of maintenance is not limited to mere subsistence but extends to enabling long-term dignity and self-reliance.

Justice Alok Jain said,

"the petitioner is required to enhance her capabilities and stature in life so as to become self-reliant, only then it would reflect that the true intent of the maintenance legislation has been fulfilled and the maintenance awarded is being utilized in its correct perspective. Therefore, this Court considered it appropriate to direct the petitioner, that out of the maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/- awarded to her, she must utilize at least 10% thereof, for improving her vocational skills."

The revision petition was filed against the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, whereby the maintenance payable to the petitioner-wife was enhanced to one-third of the respondent-husband's net salary, amounting to ₹15,000 per month.

Dissatisfied with the enhancement, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking further increase, contending that maintenance ought to have been fixed at one-third of the respondent's gross salary, instead of the net salary.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Family Court had erred in assessing the respondent's income. It was submitted that the respondent was earning ₹58,016 per month, as reflected in his salary slip, but the trial court wrongly took into account voluntary deductions and assessed the take-home salary at ₹45,000. On this basis, maintenance was calculated at one-third of the net salary.

The petitioner further contended that maintenance law is a piece of social welfare legislation and must be applied liberally. It was argued that the wife is entitled to enjoy the same standard of living, comfort and amenities as are being enjoyed by the husband.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that the petitioner had failed to place any material on record to show an actual increase in her reasonable needs or expenses that were not being met by the maintenance already granted. The Court observed that a general rise in the cost of living cannot be viewed in isolation, as such increases are ordinarily accompanied by corresponding revisions in salaries.

In the present case, the Court found no evidence to suggest that the portion of the respondent's income granted as maintenance had not kept pace with inflation or that the petitioner had suffered any financial hardship. Even assuming that some deductions reflected in the salary slip were voluntary, the Court held that this would not materially alter the overall assessment of maintenance.

Husbands Human-Being Too

The Court further observed that "the present petition appears to be an attempt to seek an enhancement beyond, what is reasonably justified, which is not the underlying intent of maintenance legislation. The husband is also a human being and a citizen of this country, and is equally entitled to lead a dignified life."

The Court found that the Family Court, while enhancing maintenance, had not discussed or evaluated any evidence produced by the petitioner regarding a change in her expenses. The enhancement appeared to have been granted mechanically, solely on the general observation that the cost of living had increased and that ₹7,500 per month was insufficient. The bench held that such generalised observations, without supporting evidence, cannot form the sole basis for enhancement of maintenance.

Trend Of Living Separately Without Cogent Reason 

The Court also took note of a growing trend where maintenance is sought without demonstrating a justifiable reason for living separately or a state of destitution. While reiterating that maintenance aims to ensure dignified living and not mere subsistence, the Court underlined the importance of promoting self-reliance and financial independence.

"Although the law mandates that maintenance is to be granted to a wife who is living separately for a just cause and who is in a destitute condition, thereby, unable to maintain herself, however, the Court is equally conscious of the need to enhance the dignity, self-respect and independence of the women. In matters of maintenance, the object is not merely subsistence but also to enable the claimant to live with dignity, therefore, a part of maintenance amount must be utilized for skills enhancement and self-development so as to promote financial independence and long term self-reliance," it added.

While dismissing the plea, the Court directed that at least 10% of the maintenance amount of ₹15,000 awarded to the petitioner should be utilised towards vocational skill development.

Mr. Vikas Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Title: XXXX v. XXX