Husband Cannot Deny Maintenance Solely on Wife’s Educational Qualifications

Lentis Legalis | Allahabad High Court | Section 125 CrPC

The Allahabad High Court has set aside an order passed by the Family Court, Bulandshahr, which denied maintenance to a wife on the ground that she was educated and capable of earning. The Court held that mere educational qualification or potential earning capacity of a wife cannot be used by a husband to evade his statutory obligation to maintain her. The revisionist was represented by Counsel Deepak Kumar Yadav.

The judgment was delivered in Criminal Revision No. 5971 of 2024, arising out of proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by a Bench presided over by Justice Garima Prashad.

The revision was filed by the wife and her minor son challenging the order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr. By the impugned order, the Family Court had rejected the wife’s claim for maintenance and awarded only ₹3,000 per month to the minor son.

The parties were married on 20 May 2006 according to Hindu rites. From the wedlock, a son was born who is presently around 15 years old and resides with the mother. The wife alleged that she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty and was forced to leave the matrimonial home along with her son. She stated that she is presently residing at her parental home and is financially dependent on them.

The wife sought ₹15,000 per month for herself and ₹10,000 per month for her son, stating that the husband is a Class-IV employee in a primary school in Bulandshahr earning around ₹35,000–₹48,000 per month.

The husband opposed the claim on the ground that the wife is highly educated, having completed M.A. prior to marriage, and also possesses an ITI diploma in tailoring. He claimed that she was working as a teacher and earning through private tuitions. He also denied paternity of the minor child, asserting that there had been no physical relationship since 2007.

The High Court held that the Family Court had misapplied Section 125(4) CrPC by denying maintenance to the wife on the ground that she refused to return to the matrimonial home despite proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Relying on Rina Kumari v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto (2025) 3 SCC 33, the Court held that refusal to resume cohabitation after a restitution decree cannot by itself disqualify a wife from claiming maintenance.

The Court also found fault with the Family Court’s reasoning that absence of criminal complaints for cruelty or dowry demand disentitled the wife from maintenance.

Significantly, the Court observed that while the wife may have concealed her educational qualifications, the husband had also made false statements by denying fatherhood of the minor child without evidence.

The High Court made strong observations on the social realities faced by women:

“The mere fact that she is a post graduate and has done ITI Diploma in tailoring by itself cannot lead to the conclusion that she is working for gain. It is a matter of social reality that women devote themselves to domestic responsibilities and take care of children and are unable to be gainfully employed.”

The Court further held:

“It is misplaced for a husband to rely solely on the qualification of his wife to evade his legal obligation to maintain her. Such sweeping assumptions are not only unfair but deeply insensitive to the social and emotional realities that women face.”

The Court reiterated that capacity to earn or meagre earnings are not sufficient grounds to deny maintenance, relying on Supreme Court judgments in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021), Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha (2014), and Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015).

Holding that the maintenance awarded to the minor son was grossly inadequate and that the wife’s financial incapacity was not properly appreciated, the High Court:

• Set aside the impugned Family Court order
• Remanded the matter to the Family Court for fresh determination of maintenance
• Directed the Family Court to pass a reasoned order within one month
• Held that both the wife and the minor son are entitled to maintenance

The judgment reinforces that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice, and that women cannot be denied maintenance merely because they are educated or theoretically capable of earning.