The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the mere fact that a wife is employed cannot, by itself, be a valid ground to deny her maintenance. The Court made it clear that what is important is not simply whether the wife is earning, but whether her income is sufficient to maintain the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage, particularly when there is a clear disparity between the financial status of the spouses.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Madan Pal Singh while hearing a revision petition filed by a husband challenging a Family Court order directing him to pay ₹15,000 per month as maintenance to his wife under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The Family Court had awarded maintenance from the date of the wife’s application after examining the financial circumstances of both parties.
Before the High Court, the husband argued that his wife was gainfully employed and financially independent. He pointed out that her Form-16 and income tax records reflected an annual income of over ₹11 lakh. On this basis, he contended that she was not entitled to maintenance. He further claimed that he had resigned from his job to take care of his elderly parents and was facing financial difficulties, making it burdensome for him to comply with the maintenance order.
However, the High Court was not persuaded by these submissions. The Court observed that even though the wife was earning approximately ₹11 lakh per annum, that fact alone did not automatically disentitle her from receiving maintenance. The Court emphasized that Section 125 CrPC is not merely intended to prevent destitution but to ensure that a wife can live with dignity and in a manner consistent with her husband’s financial and social status. If there is a substantial disparity in earnings and overall financial capacity, maintenance may still be justified despite the wife’s employment.
The Court also noted that the husband failed to place convincing evidence on record to substantiate his claim of financial hardship. His assertion that he was unable to pay maintenance was not adequately supported by material evidence. On the contrary, the Court found that there was a noticeable gap in the financial standing of the parties, which justified the grant of maintenance.
Accordingly, the High Court held that the Family Court’s direction to pay ₹15,000 per month was reasonable and did not suffer from any illegality. The husband’s revision petition was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that a working wife may still be entitled to maintenance where her income, though substantial, is insufficient in comparison to her husband’s financial position and standard of living.
