The Kerala High Court has ruled that a wife cannot be denied maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) merely because she is well-qualified and capable of earning. The Court emphasized that “actual inability to sustain” is the key factor, rather than “mere potential earning capacity.”
The primary legal question before the Court was: “Can a wife be denied maintenance if she is well-qualified and capable of earning but not working?”
Justice Kauser Edappagath, dismissing the revision petition filed by the husband, held that a highly qualified wife, if not working and earning, is entitled to maintenance until she secures sufficient means to support herself. The Court explicitly expressed its inability to concur with a recent contrary view taken by the Delhi High Court.
Background of the Case
The revision petition challenged an order dated May 10, 2018, passed by the Family Court, Nedumangad, in M.C. No. 89 of 2017. The respondents (wife and child) had filed a claim under Section 125(1) of the Cr.P.C. seeking monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 7,000, respectively.
The marital relationship and the paternity of the child were not in dispute. The wife alleged that she had sufficient cause to reside separately, citing that the petitioner’s brother and wife had started residing in the house constructed by the petitioner. The Family Court accepted this as a valid ground for living separately and awarded monthly maintenance of Rs. 6,000 to the wife and Rs. 4,500 to the child.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner-husband, represented by Advocate Sri. Ajit G. Anjarlekar, resisted the claim on two main grounds:
- Means of the Wife: He argued that the wife is a “well-qualified teacher by profession” holding B.Ed and M.A. degrees, and thus has sufficient means to maintain herself. He contended that she was working at Nurul Huda Public School earning Rs. 20,000 per month.
- Valid Reason for Separation: He claimed the wife left his company without any valid reason.
The husband vehemently argued that an educated lady capable of earning should not sit idle solely to claim maintenance. Reliance was placed on a recent decision of the Delhi High Court in Megha Khetrapal v. Rajat Kapoor (2025 SCC OnLine Del 1688).
The respondents, represented by Advocate Sri. R.B. Rajesh, maintained that the husband, working as a Store Manager earning Rs. 66,900 per month, had sufficient means. Regarding the wife’s employment, the Court noted that “no evidence has been adduced to prove the said contention” that she was currently working and earning.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court examined the definition of “unable to maintain herself” under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – BNSS).
Justice Edappagath observed that Section 125 is a measure of social justice intended to protect women and children, falling within the constitutional scheme of Articles 15(3) and 39 of the Constitution of India.
On Interpretation of “Unable to Maintain” The Court stated:
“Thus, the expression ‘unable to maintain’ in Section 125 of Cr.P.C must be interpreted to mean the actual inability to sustain rather than mere potential earning capacity. The expression does not mean mere capacity or capability to earn. So much so, a highly qualified wife, if not working and earning, cannot be denied maintenance on the ground that she has the capacity to earn.”
On Precedents The Court discussed several Supreme Court judgments regarding the wife’s earning capacity:
- Rajnesh v. Neha and Another [(2021) 2 SCC 324]: Held that even if a wife is earning, it does not bar her from being awarded maintenance. The court must determine if her income is sufficient to maintain her lifestyle as per the husband’s home.
- Shailja & Another v. Khobbanna [(2018) 12 SCC 199]: Distinguished “capable of earning” from “actual earning,” holding that capability is not a sufficient ground to reduce maintenance.
- Dr. Swapan Kumar Banarjee v. State of West Bengal and Another [(2020) 19 SCC 342]: Held that without compelling evidence, it cannot be assumed a qualified woman is actually earning.
- Sunita Kachwaha and Others v. Anil Kachwaha [(2014) 16 SCC 715]: Ruled that merely because a wife earns something is not a ground to reject her claim.
- Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [(2008) 2 SCC 316]: Observed that “unable to maintain herself” does not mean the wife must be absolutely destitute.
The Court also cited its own recent decision in Jayaprakash E.P. v. Sheney P. (2025 (1) KLT 815), which held that a temporary job does not disentitle a wife to maintenance if the income is insufficient.
Dissent from Delhi High Court View Addressing the petitioner’s reliance on the Delhi High Court judgment, Justice Edappagath explicitly disagreed:
“For these reasons, I cannot concur with the view of the Delhi High Court in Megha Khetrapal (supra) that a well-qualified wife, having the earning capacity but remaining idle, cannot claim maintenance from her husband.”
Decision
The Court held that the husband, earning Rs. 66,900 per month, had the requisite means. It found the maintenance awarded by the Family Court (Rs. 6,000 for the wife and Rs. 4,500 for the child) to be reasonable considering the requirements of the respondents.
Concluding that “a highly qualified jobless wife is entitled to maintenance until she secures sufficient means to support herself,” the High Court dismissed the Revision Petition, finding no illegality or impropriety in the Family Court’s order.
