Back
Radiologist Wife's Past Glory Clips Alimony: Allahabad HC Slashes Maintenance Award
In a nuanced take on spousal support, the has trimmed a order, reducing monthly maintenance for a radiologist wife from Rs 18,000 to Rs 12,000 under . Justice Madan Pal Singh ruled that her professional skills and prior employment can't be brushed aside, even as her army subedar husband's Rs 70,000 salary highlighted their income gap. The decision in balances dignity with self-reliance.
From Matrimonial Bliss to Maintenance Battle
Binay Kushwaha, a Subedar in the , and his wife Jyoti Shakya Kushwaha, a qualified radiologist, saw their marriage sour. She worked at Fortis Hospital, Gurugram, from 2014 to 2020 before quitting voluntarily and leaving the matrimonial home. In , Jyoti filed for maintenance in (Case No. 894/), claiming inability to sustain herself. The trial court awarded Rs 12,000 monthly from filing date till , then hiked it to Rs 18,000 onward. Binay challenged this via Criminal Revision No. 2132/2025, arguing her earning potential made the sum excessive.
Husband Fires Back: 'She's a Pro, Not Helpless'
Binay's counsel, , hammered home Jyoti's credentials: a radiologist with six years at a top hospital, admitted in court. He argued she ditched her job and home willingly, shirking matrimonial duties to extract cash. Why penalize the husband's steady Rs 70,000 pay when she's primed for gainful work? This plea framed the core question: Does a wife's qualifications absolve higher maintenance?
Wife's Defense: 'Qualifications Don't Cancel My Needs'
Opposite counsel countered fiercely, defending the 's logic. Mere employment history or degrees don't nix maintenance, especially with stark disparities—his client's stalled career versus Binay's armed forces perks and status. They invoked the provision's aim: ensuring wives live with dignity akin to matrimonial life, not scraping by.
Bench Weighs Skills Against Support: Precedent Steps In
Justice Madan Pal Singh dissected the record, affirming Jyoti's legal wife status but spotlighting her "substantial earning capacity." Citing the Supreme Court's
Shailja v. Khobbanna
(2018) 12 SCC 199, he clarified: Maintenance ensures dignity, but
"mere earning... does not disentitle her... the decisive test is whether such income is sufficient."
Here, her expertise tipped the scales—past job proves she
can
earn, so Rs 18,000 felt "excessive and not commensurate."
The court rejected blanket denial for working wives but insisted on factoring
"professional competence and earning potential,"
distinguishing cases of true penury from capable claimants.
Key Observations from the Judgment
-
On Purpose of Provision :
"The object of granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to ensure that the wife is able to live with dignity and maintain a standard of living reasonably similar to that enjoyed in the matrimonial home."
-
Earning Test Refined :
"Mere earning of the wife does not disentitle her from maintenance; the decisive test is whether such income is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself with dignity."
-
Capacity Can't Hide :
"Maintenance cannot be granted ignoring the professional competence and earning potential of the claimant."
-
Verdict on Excess :
"The amount of Rs.18,000/- per month... appears to be excessive and not commensurate with the earning capacity of the parties."
Final Call: Down to 12K, Revision Partly Allowed
The revision succeeded partially: Maintenance unified at Rs 12,000 monthly from the filing date, modifying the February 2025 order. This pragmatic cut signals to lower courts—assess real capacity in alimony math. For professionals like radiologists, it underscores self-sufficiency trumps sympathy, potentially curbing inflated claims while upholding Section 125's welfare core. Future benches may lean harder on resumes over rhetoric.
