A wife who is well-qualified but not working is still entitled to maintenance, as inability to maintain oneself does not require absolute destitution.

ORDER :

Kauser Edappagath, J.

Can a wife be denied maintenance if she is well-qualified and capable of earning but not working? – This is the main point raised for consideration in this Revision Petition.

2. The petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and the father of the second respondent. The respondents filed M.C. No.89/2017 under Section 125 (1) of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner before the Family Court, Nedumangad, claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs 15,000/- and Rs 7,000/- respectively. The petitioner resisted the claim mainly on two grounds: (i) the first respondent is a well-qualified teacher by profession and has sufficient means to maintain herself, and (ii) the first respondent left the company of the petitioner without any valid reason and hence she is not entitled to claim maintenance. The Family Court repelled those contentions and granted monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs 6,000/- and Rs 4,500/- respectively to the respondents. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the said order.

3. I have heard Sri.Ajit G. Anjarlekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri.R.B. Rajesh, the learned counsel for the respondents.

4. The marital relationship and the paternity of the child are not in dispute. It is also not disputed that the first respondent, along with the second respondent, is living separately from the petitioner. A separated life of a wife for a valid cause is recognised by law, and that will not stand in the way of raising a claim for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C (Section 144 of BNSS ). According to the first respondent, there is sufficient cause for her to reside separately from the petitioner. It has come out in evidence that the brother and wife of the petitioner started to reside in the house constructed by the petitioner. The Family Court found it sufficient ground to justify the first respondent to live separately from the petitioner. I see no reason to take a different view.

5. The petitioner is admittedly working as a Store Manager and earns Rs. 66,900/- per month and thus has sufficient means to maintain the respondents. He contended that the first respondent is working as a teacher at Nurul Huda Public School, drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 20,000/- and able to maintain herself. However, no evidence has been adduced to prove the said contention.

6. The first respondent is admittedly a graduate in Education (B.Ed) and a postgraduate in Arts (M.A). The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that even if it is assumed that the first respondent does not have a job, she is a well-educated lady having qualifications of M.A. and B.Ed. and thus can secure a decent job to earn a livelihood. According to the learned counsel, an educated lady who is capable of earning to maintain herself, sitting idle only to see that her husband provides maintenance to her, is not entitled to maintenance. Reliance was placed on the recent decision of the Delhi High Court in Megha Khetrapal v. Rajat Kapoor (2025 SCC OnLine Del 1688).

7. As per Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (Section 144 of BNSS ), the husband who has sufficient means is liable to provide maintenance to the wife who is unable to maintain herself. The meaning of the expression ‘unable to maintain herself’ in of Cr.P.C. (Section 144 of ) came up for consideration before the Supreme Court many times. In Rajnesh v. Neha and Another [ (2021) 2 SCC 324 ], the Supreme Court has held that even if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. It wa