Law Doesn't Appreciate Educated Wife Sitting Idle & Seeking Maintenance From Husband: Orissa High Court

While lessening the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court, the Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed –

“Law never appreciates those wives, who remain idle only to saddle the liability of paying maintenance on the husband by not working or not trying to work despite having proper and high qualification.”

Case Background

The petitioner in this case is the husband and the opposite party is the wife. Due to some marital dissensions, the wife filed an application seeking maintenance from the husband under Section 125 of the CrPC.

While deciding the application, the Family Court, Rourkela found the in-hand salary of the petitioner to be Rs. 32,541/-. It also considered the fact that the petitioner has his dependent mother. Similarly, the wife filed an affidavit disclosing her assets and liabilities as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (2020).

The opposite party-wife described herself as jobless/unemployed. However, evidence was forthcoming that she is a science graduate, having Post-Graduate Diploma in Journalism and Mass Communication. Further, it was also revealed that she previously worked with some media houses.

Taking note of the aforesaid facts, the trial Court held that the wife is a well-educated lady and has potential to support herself financially by doing a suitable job, but at present, she is not working anywhere to earn her livelihood. Therefore, it awarded a maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 8,000/- per month. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner husband challenged the order before the High Court through this revision petition.

High Court's Observations

Considering the undisputed facts that the wife is highly educated and decently qualified to support herself financially and that she also previously worked with certain media houses, the Court remarked that the law of the land does not provide ministration to those wives who despite having high qualification, choose to sit idle just to burden their husbands with demands of maintenance.

“The intention and objective of legislature in enacting Section 125 of CrPC is to provide succour to those wives, who are unable to maintain themselves and have no sufficient income for their sustenance,” the Bench emphasized.

Underlining the facts of the case in hand, the Court opined that the opposite party-wife has 'definite prospect' to work and earn her own livelihood. Justice Satapathy further stressed that the maintenance amount cannot be decided being divorced from the education and career prospects of the wife.

“The social objective behind the provision for grant of maintenance, if considered on the admitted facts as discussed in this case, it would go to disclose the wife's need and requirement to be balanced not only with the income and liability of the husband, but also has to be considered on the backdrop of the education and prospect of the wife to earn,” he added.

Therefore, to strike a balance in view of the admitted facts of the case, the Court considered it apposite to reduce the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court, i.e. Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month. Accordingly, the revision petition was allowed in part.

Case Title: Madan Kumar Satpathy v. Priyadarshini Pati

Case No: RPFAM No. 417 of 2023

Date of Judgment: February 07, 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. A.C. Panda, Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Party: Mr. R.C. Ojha, Advocate

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 21