In a revision petition filed before the Kerala High Court, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath considered whether a wife, who is not working but is well qualified and capable of earning, should be denied maintenance and held that a highly qualified jobless wife is entitled to maintenance until she secures sufficient means to support herself.
The wife and the child filed a petition before the Family Court, Nedumangad, seeking maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 7000/- respectively. The husband opposed the claim, stating that the wife was a well-qualified teacher, had sufficient means to maintain herself, and that she left him without a valid reason. The Family Court granted Rs. 6000/- and Rs. 4500/- respectively as maintenance to the wife and the child. The husband filed the present petition to challenge the same.
The Court said that a separated life of a wife for a valid cause is recognized by law and that the same would not stand in the way of a claim for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). It was noted that the husband worked as a store manager earning Rs. 66,900/- per month and that he had sufficient means to maintain his wife and child.
The Court found no evidence on record to prove that the wife was working as a teacher and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. However, it was noted that the wife was a graduate in Education and a post-graduate in Arts. The Court referred to various cases and stated that the test is whether the wife can maintain herself in the status that her husband had maintained for her.
The Court stated that Section 125, CrPC, had been explicitly enacted to protect women and children, and that it fell within the constitutional scheme of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution. It was further said that while interpreting a beneficial legislation, words must be interpreted in a manner by which the relief contemplated by the provision is secured.
It was stated that the expression ‘unable to maintain’ must be interpreted to mean the actual inability to sustain rather than mere potential earning capacity. The Court stated that a highly qualified wife, who is neither working nor earning, cannot be denied maintenance on the ground that she is capable of earning.
Thus, the Court refused to concur with the Delhi High Court’s view in Megha Khetrapal v. Rajat Kapoor, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1688, wherein it was held that a well-qualified wife who remains idle cannot claim maintenance from her husband.
The Court noted that the husband had the required means to provide maintenance and held that the monthly maintenance granted by the Family Court was reasonable. It was noted that the impugned order had no illegality or impropriety, and hence, the petition was dismissed.
Appearances:
For Petitioner(s) – Mr. Ajit G Anjarlekar, Mr. Govind Padmanaabhan, Mr. G.P. Shinod
For Respondent(s) – Mr. R.B. Rajesh
