The Bombay High Court has affirmed that a wife’s educational qualifications alone do not disqualify her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 CrPC if she lacks an independent source of income. The Court rejected the husband’s revision application, upholding the Family Court’s order granting Rs. 20,000 per month to the wife and Rs. 10,000 per month to their minor daughter.
The Verdict
The husband’s revision application was dismissed. The Bombay High Court upheld the Family Court’s order granting maintenance of Rs. 20,000 per month to the wife and Rs. 10,000 per month to the minor daughter under Section 125 CrPC. The Court held that despite the wife’s educational qualifications, her lack of independent income, the child’s custody with her, and the husband’s admitted financial capacity justified the award. No perversity or legal infirmity was found in the trial court’s findings.
Background & Facts
The parties married on 12 February 2021 and have one minor daughter. The wife alleged that after a few months of marriage, the husband ceased cohabitation and refused to maintain her or the child. She claimed that during Diwali 2019, she and her parents attempted to meet the husband to reconcile, but he and his family locked their home and left town. She further stated she had no source of income and relied on the husband for support.
The husband contested the claim, admitting his monthly salary of Rs. 76,000 but asserting that after deductions, his net income was Rs. 46,000. He denied earning from agricultural land or stationery business, though he admitted owning ancestral property and that his father received a pension. He conceded he had not sent any money to his wife. The wife produced salary certificates and academic expense records, while the husband failed to substantiate his claimed deductions beyond Rs. 1,980. The Family Court found the wife qualified but without independent means, and awarded maintenance accordingly.
The husband filed a revision application challenging the maintenance order, having previously withdrawn his appeal against the same judgment. The Family Court’s order remained the only operative decision under challenge.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a wife’s educational qualifications and potential employability can negate her entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC in the absence of actual independent income, particularly when the child is in her custody and the husband has demonstrable means.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The husband contended that the wife, having completed H.S.C. and a D.Ed. degree, was capable of employment and therefore not entitled to maintenance. He argued that her failure to seek employment indicated unwillingness to be self-reliant, and that the maintenance award was excessive given his net income of Rs. 46,000. He further claimed the Family Court ignored his financial constraints and failed to assess his actual disposable income after legitimate deductions.
For the Respondent
The wife argued that despite her qualifications, she had no current employment or income. She emphasized that the husband had admitted to not sending any financial support and that the child, aged ten, remained in her sole custody. She relied on the husband’s admitted salary, ownership of ancestral property, and absence of liabilities to establish his capacity to pay. Her affidavit of assets and liabilities corroborated her financial dependence.
The Court's Analysis
The Court emphasized that Section 125 CrPC is a social welfare provision designed to prevent destitution. The entitlement to maintenance does not hinge on the wife’s potential to earn, but on her actual financial dependence and the husband’s ability to provide. The Court noted that the wife’s qualifications were not in dispute, but her lack of employment or income was equally unchallenged.
"There is nothing to show that she has independent source of income. Moreover, child is with her. When husband has admitted that he is not sending money to her, it is obvious that there is neglect to maintain in spite of having sufficient means..."
The Court rejected the husband’s argument that deductions reduced his capacity, as he provided no documentary evidence beyond a nominal Rs. 1,980 deduction. His admission of salary, ancestral property, and absence of liabilities established sufficient means. The Court further held that the maintenance award of Rs. 30,000 total (Rs. 20,000 to wife, Rs. 10,000 to child) was reasonable and proportionate to the husband’s income and the child’s needs.
The Court clarified that Section 125 does not require the wife to prove inability to earn, only that she is unable to maintain herself. Potential employment is irrelevant absent actual earnings. The husband’s failure to provide financial support, coupled with his demonstrable means, constituted sufficient grounds for maintenance.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment reinforces that Section 125 CrPC prioritizes actual financial need over theoretical employability. Practitioners must now treat educational qualifications as irrelevant to maintenance entitlement unless the wife is demonstrably employed or earning. The burden remains on the husband to substantiate claimed deductions and financial constraints with verifiable documents. Merely asserting a lower net income without supporting evidence will not suffice.
The ruling also clarifies that maintenance for a child is a separate and independent entitlement under Section 125, not merely an add-on to the wife’s claim. Future applications must separately quantify child maintenance based on actual needs, not as a percentage of the wife’s award. This decision strengthens the position of women in post-separation financial disputes, particularly where children are involved, and discourages strategic arguments based on potential rather than actual income.
