Summary of this article
The Allahabad High Court upholds Rs 15,000 maintenance to the wife, despite her being employed.
Section 125 ensures marital lifestyle, not just survival needs.
Wife's employment is no bar if there is income disparity and her income can't match her husband's status.
The Allahabad High Court has recently affirmed that maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, is not merely a safety net but a tool to ensure that a spouse can live with dignity. In a significant ruling, the court dismissed a husband’s plea that challenged the maintenance order. The court held that even if the wife is employed, she is also entitled to a standard of living consistent with what she experienced during her marriage.
Justice Madan Pal Singh emphasised that the wife’s earning capacity or mere employment is not a sufficient ground to deny her maintenance support. The court noted the disparity in financial status that often exists between estranged partners and clarified that the law looks beyond basic survival.
In this family dispute matter, the family court in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, had directed the husband to pay a Rs 15,000 monthly pension to his wife, which the husband contested. He argued that the wife is educated, working, and is earning an annual salary of Rs 11.28 lakhs. He argued that the wife is financially independent and thus, maintenance shouldn’t be granted. He argued that he was forced to leave his job in JPMorgan, where he earned around Rs 40 lakh annually, to take care of his parents. He further contended that due to his financial liabilities and insufficient income, he cannot pay the mandated maintenance to his wife.
However, the court noted a glaring disparity in the earning capacity and status of the parties involved. It noted that while the wife was earning, her income could not be said to be sufficient to maintain the same standard of living as she used to have during her marital life. The court observed that the husband had not provided any convincing evidence to show a decrease in his earning capacity.
Justice Singh noted that the husband’s claims about financial constraints were unconvincing and “bald assertions”, per a report by Live Law. The court underscored that the objective of Section 125 is to ensure that a wife can live with dignity, consistent with the husband’s status, and dismissed the husband’s plea.
The court held that the maintenance of Rs 15,000, ordered by the family court, considering the husband’s earning capacity and his claimed liabilities, is reasonable. It suggests that for determining maintenance, the benchmark is the status of the husband, irrespective of the wife’s employment. The ruling is a crucial reminder that maintenance obligations cannot be evaded by people simply by pointing out the spouse’s independent income.
