Nagpur: Reinforcing the scope of maintenance laws, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court last week held that “merely because the wife was earning, it could not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance”.While upholding a Yavatmal family court order granting monthly support to a woman and her minor son, Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke dismissed a criminal revision application filed by a man, who challenged the 2023 order directing him to pay Rs 2,000 each to his wife and child. The judge said the objective of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure is to prevent destitution and vagrancy and financial capability must be assessed in the context of sustaining a reasonable standard of living.The case arose from a matrimonial dispute between the couple, whose marriage was solemnised in November 2019. The couple has a son born in August 2020. The wife alleged sustained mental cruelty, neglect during pregnancy and abandonment after childbirth, forced her to seek maintenance and restitution of conjugal rights before the family court.The husband, opposing the plea, argued that his wife was employed as an assistant professor earning a substantial salary and was therefore financially independent. He contended she had voluntarily withdrawn from matrimonial life and was not entitled to maintenance.However, the high court, after examining the evidence, found that the wife’s employment was temporary and lacked stability, while reiterating principles laid down by Supreme Court in multiple precedents.The judge also observed that the husband had failed to disclose his income and could not evade responsibility by claiming financial incapacity. “An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children,” the judgment stated, adding that adverse inference can be drawn if income details are withheld.On the issue of marital discord, the court accepted the wife’s account of consistent humiliation and lack of support even during and after pregnancy. It held that such conduct established “neglect and refusal” on part of the husband, forming the basis for maintenance under law.The judgment further noted that even if a wife has some income, it must be sufficient to maintain a standard of living comparable to that in the matrimonial home. In this case, the modest sum awarded by the family court was found to be “reasonable, just and proper,” especially considering rising living costs and needs of the child, including his educational expenses.Dismissing the revision application, the court upheld the maintenance order, emphasising that social welfare provisions cannot be diluted by a narrow interpretation of a woman’s earning capacity.Key takeaways from HC verdict:Earning status of wife alone is no ground to deny maintenanceSection 125 CrPC aims to prevent destitution, not punish conductTemporary or unstable income does not amount to financial independenceHusband’s failure to disclose income can invite adverse inferenceAssess maintenance based on standard of living, not mere earningsEvidence of neglect & refusal is central to maintenance claimsEven modest maintenance amounts can be upheld if deemed reasonableSupreme Court precedents reaffirm wife’s right despite employment
