High Income Of Husband Doesn't Automatically Mean High Maintenance For Wife: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has rejected a petition filed by a wife seeking enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 8000 per month, on the ground that the husband was earning more than Rs. 1.5 Lakhs per month, opining that maintenance could not be claimed on a straight-jacket formula that a fixed proportion of husband's income had to be awarded. "The law does not envisage that because the husband earns more, the wife must necessarily receive half or a substantial fraction thereof. Such an approach would amount to converting maintenance proceedings into a de facto claim for sharing of income or property, which is impermissible," Justice Farjand Ali said.The Court also took into account the high level academic and professional qualifications of the petitioner, and opined that mere assertion of being unemployed at present, did not by itself established that the wife was not able to maintain herself.“The settled legal position is that while mere capacity to earn does not disentitle a wife from maintenance, the Court is entitled to take into account the earning potential, qualifications and past employment while determining the quantum. The learned Family Court has not denied maintenance on this ground; rather, it has calibrated the quantum after due consideration, which cannot be said to be illegal or perverse.”The petitioner and the respondent solemnized marriage, that lasted 57 days. During this the wife made allegations of cruelty on the husband and his family, and also filed for maintenance. This maintenance application was decided by the Family Court that granted Rs. 8000 per month as maintenance to the wife. This order was challenged before the Court on the ground of the maintenance being grossly inadequate and disproportionate to the petitioner's needs. It was highlighted that the respondent was a government employee who was earning more than Rs. 1.5 lakhs a month, and also held property. It was further argued that merely on the ground of her educational qualifications, the Family court could not have decided the maintenance amount, since mere capacity to earn did not disentitle a legally wedded wife to seek maintenance, considering that she was unemployed at the moment. On the contrary, the respondent argued that the petitioner was a highly qualified person, who used to work at reputed institutions. She voluntarily chose not to work which could not be construed as inability to maintain herself. The respondent further highlighted despite contesting his entitlement, he was regularly depositing the maintenance. After hearing the contentions, the Court rejected the arguments put forth by the petitioner. It was observed, the law did not envisage that just because husband earned more, the wife had to necessarily receive half or a substantial portion of his income. Further, the Court also took into account the fact that the marriage lasted for only 57 days, and held that, “matrimonial relationship between the parties subsisted for an extremely short duration of about 57 days. While the length of marriage by itself is not determinative of entitlement under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it is nonetheless a relevant factor in assessing the nature of dependency, adjustment of lifestyle, and the extent to which parties had, in fact, shared a common standard of living.”The Court also considered the qualifications of the petitioner, and held that present unemployment did not by itself establish petitioner's inability to maintain herself. It was observed that while mere capacity did not disentitle the wife from maintenance, the Court could take into account her earning potential for deciding quantum of the maintenance. The Court further opined that the respondent's conduct of regularly depositing maintenance could also not be brushed aside lightly since that reflected bona fides, gentlemanship and a responsible approach towards judicial orders. “Courts are not oblivious to conduct of parties, as equity and good conscience are integral to the dispensation of justice.”Accordingly, the petition was rejected. Title: Ritu Khatri v Navneet KhannaCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 44Click Here To Read/Download Order

High Income Of Husband Doesn't Automatically Mean High Maintenance For Wife: Rajasthan High Court

Nupur Agrawal

Tags