The Allahabad High Court has held that a wife cannot be denied maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) solely on the grounds that she is highly educated or has vocational skills.
Setting aside a family court order rejecting a woman’s application seeking maintenance from her husband, Justice Garima Prashad observed that it is “misplaced for a husband to rely solely on the qualifications of his wife to evade his legal obligation to maintain her”.
The court said a wife’s mere potential to earn is distinct from actual gainful employment.
The court emphasised that many women, despite being educated, struggle to re-enter the workforce after years devoted to domestic duties and childcare responsibilities.
The court set aside
an order of the additional principal judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr, who had rejected the wife’s application moved under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance from her husband.
The family court had dismissed the wife’s maintenance plea, citing that she had concealed her professional qualifications and had not approached the court with clean hands.
The family court also held that the wife was living separately without sufficient cause and had refused to return to the matrimonial home despite proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
8from the date of filing of the petition.
During the High Court hearing, the wife’s counsel argued that she had no source of income and that the second opposite party, the husband, had failed to provide any evidence showing that she was working or gainfully employed.
The husband contended that his wife is highly qualified and is currently employed as a private teacher, holds an ITI diploma in tailoring and she also earns income by providing tuition to children.
The High Court observed that the wife may have left the matrimonial home due to ill-treatment and noted that there was no specific finding establishing that she was gainfully employed.
It further observed that the statutory right of the wife to get maintenance from her husband cannot be infringed by setting up a case that she had the capacity to earn.
The high court in its decision dated January 5 observed, “It is a matter of social reality that women devote themselves to domestic responsibilities and take care of children and are unable to be gainfully employed. It is, therefore, misplaced for a husband to rely solely on the qualification of his wife to evade his legal obligation to maintain her.” It also acknowledged an unemployed wife’s situation who has to single-handedly care for her young child, saying it reflects the “reality faced by many women, who, despite their education, find it difficult to join the workforce after years of domestic duties”.
Furthermore, the high court termed Rs 3,000 awarded to the adolescent son as a “meagre” amount and noted that the boy requires support to study and grow in a healthy environment.
The high court sent the matter back to the Family Court, Bulandshahr, for passing a fresh, reasoned order within one month.
(With inputs from PTI)
