Educational qualifications or the potential to earn do not disqualify a spouse from receiving maintenance. The primary obligation to provide support is based on actual financial sustenance, ensuring the spouse avoids destitution and maintains a lifestyle consistent with the standard once shared in the marriage.

ORDER :

1. The applicant has challenged the order rejecting the maintenance application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.PC’) dated 05.04.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Vadodara in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.882 of 2021.

2. Learned Advocate Mr. Yogesh Joshi for the applicant submitted that the family Court on the ground of the educational qualification and vocational training of the applicant and a short-term employment of nine days, that too after the filing of the application for maintenance and her holding of the SBI credit card on the ground of the temporary employment in SBI Credit Card Department had found the applicant capable to maintain herself, thus has rejected the application.

2.1 Advocate Mr. Joshi, referring to the judgment of Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai , (2008) 2 SCC 316, submitted that the learned Family Court Judge has overlooked the settled principles that the wife’s inability to maintain herself must be assessed on the relevant circumstances, which would be the circumstances after the marriage and during the matrimonial life and not the past employment or the academic background.

2.2 Advocate Mr. Joshi has also referred to the judgments of Shailja vs. Khobbanna , 2017 (0) AIJEL-SC 59972, Nirmala Bhanji vs. Jayantilal Vithaldas, 1975 (0) AIJEL-HC 208734, Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai , 2007 (0) AIJEL-SC 40145, Kumpal Jagdishbhai Madrasi vs. State of Gujarat, 2024 (0) AIJEL-HC 248140, Meghrajsingh S/o Maharajsinh Chudasma vs. Meghaviniba W/o Meghrajsinh Chudasama D/o Prahladsinhji Pradyumansinhji Jadeja and Anr., 2024 (0) AIJEL-HC 249045, Ravinder Singh Bisht vs. State of U.P. and anr. In Cr.Ra No.1637 of 2025, Sunita Kachwaha vs. Anil Kachwaha , 2014 (0) AIJEL-HC 55844, submitting that the status of the husband, his living standard and the means of the husband has to be considered while assessing the requirement of the maintenance money. Even if the wife is capable of earning, the husband cannot deny the maintenance as per his standard.

2.3 Advocate Mr. Joshi has also relied on the judgment of Sunita Kachwaha (supra) to submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has noted the facts of the post graduation qualification of the wife and has held that merely because of such qualification, it would not be sufficient to hold that she is not in a position to maintain herself and merely because the wife is earning something, it would not be a ground to deny maintenance in absence of the proof of employment on record.

2.4 Advocate Mr. Joshi submitted that the applicant had tried to seek employment after filing the maintenance application but had failed. She could serve only for nine days which is an admitted proof on record and though inspite of her educational qualification and vocational training, she has not been in a position to secure any job.

3. Countering the arguments, learned Advocate Mr. Amit Patel for learned Advocate Mr. PS Patel relying on the judgments of Cri.Rev.P.No.273/2023 and Cr.ma No.6767/2023, Gurpreet Dhariwal vs. Amit Jain 2022/DHC/001082, Sukhmani Kaur and Anr. vs. Ravinder Palsingh Crr.F-386-2024 (O&M), Damanpreet Kaur vs. Indermeet Juneja and Anr. Cr.L. Rev.P. 344/2011, Sh. Neeraj Aggarwal vs. Mrs. Veeka Aggarwal, M.No.28/2007 submitted that in the referred judgments, the courts have taken into consideration the educational qualification of the petitioner, her capability of earning, her previou