Wife Can't Be Denied Maintenance Merely Because She Is Qualified Unless It's Proved That She Quit Job Just For Seeking Allowance: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that maintenance cannot be denied merely because the wife is professionally qualified unless it is proved that she has given up a profession just for seeking the maintenance allowance.

Justice Sumeet Goel said,

"The wife merely by virtue of being educationally qualified cannot be held disentitled to seek maintenance, until and unless it is proved that she being professionally qualified, having taken up a profession, has given up on such profession, just for the sake of seeking maintenance. In the present case, it is not the case of the husband that the wife was working and earning after the marriage prior to her filing the present petition for grant of maintenance."

These observations were made while hearing revision pleas challenging the order of a Family Court  wherein it directed the sum of Rs.10,000 per month to the wife and Rs.5,000 per month to the minor son, to be paid by the husband. He was also directed to continue paying rent for the accommodation of wife and minor child.

The husband challenged the order while the wife sought enhancement of the maintenance amount.

After examining the submissions, the Court rejected the husbands' argument that the wife being professionally qualified cannot be expected to sit idle and as such she is not entitled to seek maintenance.

Justice Goel highlighted that it is not the case of the husband that the wife was working and earning after the marriage prior to her filing the present petition for grant of maintenance.

The Court also noted that while passing the impugned order, the Family Court had noted on this aspect that the wife is spending most of her time in taking care of the minor child.

The judge also rejected the contention that the wife is not entitled to receive any maintenance because she is involved with other men.

"The record of the case lay bare the hollowness of these submissions on the part of the husband. There is no evidence to substantiate the wild allegations levelled by the husband to assassinate the character of the wife," said the Court.

Justice Goel refused to enhance the maintenance amount observing that the husband is also paying for the accommodation along with the maintenance.

"The maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.5,000/- per month to the son is not the only amount, husband is paying. Over and above the said amount he is paying the rent for the accommodation of the wife and son. The said rent is stated to be Rs.10,000/- per month in the year 2019, which was stated to have increased to Rs.14,300/- per month in the year 2023, and must have increase further with 10 % increase of rent per year qua the tenanted premises,” said the Court.

It is pertinent to note that a single judge bench of the High Court refused to grant maintenance to a wife observing that, "it is first and foremost duty of the petitioner to maintain herself. Especially keeping in mind, the fact that she is able-bodied. The purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to protect abandoned wives who are unable to maintain themselves from vagrancy and destitution."

Title: DXXXXX v. XXXXX [CRR(F)-1834-2023 (O&M) and CRR(F)-587-2024 (O&M)]

Mr. P. Norula, Advocate and Mr. Bhupinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate and Ms. Urvashi, Advocate for the respondents.