Dealing with the question of whether a highly qualified and earning wife is entitled to maintenance, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) has set aside a maintenance order granted to a wife who is employed as a Medical Officer and draws a monthly salary of over ₹1.38 lakh.
The Bench of Justice Abhay S. Waghwase observed that while employment is not a bar to claiming maintenance, the Court must determine if the wife’s income is sufficient to maintain herself in a similar lifestyle to that of her husband. In this case, the Court found the wife capable of maintaining herself “decently and with dignity.”
Background of the Case
The case stems from a matrimonial dispute between the Applicant (Husband) and the Respondent (Wife), both of whom are doctors. The couple married in May 2010, and a son was born from the wedlock. Following strained relations and separation in August 2010, the wife approached the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Udgir, filing an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act). She sought maintenance of ₹25,000 per month for herself and the child.
On August 3, 2019, the JMFC awarded maintenance of ₹12,000 per month to the wife and ₹10,000 per month to the son, along with ₹7,000 towards rent and ₹1 lakh as compensation. The husband challenged this order, but the Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, dismissed his appeal on January 31, 2023, upholding the lower court’s decision. Aggrieved by these orders, the husband filed a Criminal Revision Application before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The Husband’s Contentions: Advocate A. A. Yadkikar, appearing for the husband, argued that the wife is highly qualified, possessing M.B.B.S. and M.D. degrees. He submitted that she is appointed through the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) as a Medical Officer in a Primary Health Centre.
The husband produced documentary evidence, including her salary slip, showing her gross salary as ₹1,38,192 per month. He argued that she has a permanent source of income, residential accommodation, and is an income tax payer. He contended that she is “not at all dependent on him and she is competent and self-sufficient to maintain herself.” However, he stated across the bar that he is ready to bear the expenses of the child but not the wife.
The Wife’s Contentions: Advocate V. D. Gunale, appearing for the wife, defended the lower courts’ orders. He argued that domestic violence was proved, justifying the protection orders. Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajnesh vs. Neha and another (AIR 2021 SC 569), he submitted that even if the wife is employed, she is entitled to maintenance to “maintain the same standard of living” she enjoyed while married.
The wife claimed in her affidavit that the husband earns ₹10,000 per day from his pediatric practice, ₹20 lakh from agriculture, and rental income. She listed various expenses, including ₹20,000 for house rent, ₹30,000 for transportation, and substantial amounts for the child’s school fees and tuition. She also claimed to be paying ₹12,000 EMI for a vehicle loan and ₹70,000 for a housing loan.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Waghwase first outlined the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chandra and Another (2012). The Court noted that interference is warranted only if the decision is grossly erroneous, ignores material evidence, or exercises discretion arbitrarily.
On the core issue of maintenance for an earning wife, the Court referred to the guidelines laid down in Rajnesh vs. Neha. The High Court observed:
“The ratio i.e. laid down is even if wife is earning, it would not operate as a bar from she being awarded maintenance by husband… the Court has to determine whether the income of wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home.”
Applying this principle to the facts, the Court noted that the wife is a Class-I officer with the State Government. The Court analyzed her financial status:
- Income: Her salary slip for August 2025 showed a salary of ₹1,38,192.
- Housing: While she claimed ₹20,000 rent expense, the salary slip showed she receives House Rent Allowance (HRA). Further, her claim of paying a housing loan EMI suggested she owns a home.
- Assets: Her payment of a car loan EMI indicated ownership of a vehicle.
The Court observed:
“Therefore, in terms of lifestyle, post separation is concerned, she does seems to have her own shelter, her own vehicle. Thus, the very essentials for comfortable lifestyle, she apparently has her means and sources. With her above quoted income, she definitely can maintain herself decently and with dignity.”
Regarding the child’s expenses, the Court noted the lack of documentary evidence for the claimed amounts but accepted the husband’s willingness to continue paying maintenance for the son.
The Decision
The High Court partly allowed the revision application, ruling that the courts below had not correctly appreciated the evidence regarding the wife’s self-sufficiency.
The Court passed the following directions:
- The order upholding maintenance to the wife was set aside.
- The specific direction granting ₹12,000 per month to the wife and the clause regarding rent were set aside.
- The husband shall continue to pay ₹10,000 per month for the maintenance of the son.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Deepak Gangadhar Dadge vs. Sou. Vijaya w/o Deepak Dadge and Another
- Case No: Criminal Revision Application No. 31 of 2024
- Coram: Justice Abhay S. Waghwase
