The Kerala High Court has ruled that a wife should not be denied maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), even if she has a temporary job, provided that her income from that job is insufficient to maintain herself. The decision came in a case involving a married woman and her two minor children, who had filed for maintenance from her husband.
In the case, the wife claimed maintenance because she lacked a permanent source of income, while the husband opposed her claim by arguing that she worked as a tailor and earned some money, implying that she did not need further support. He also contested the maintenance order granted for their children. The Family Court had rejected the wife’s claim, relying on her modest employment. The husband further argued that, under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, the mother could also contribute financially, suggesting that her earnings should reduce his maintenance burden.
However, the High Court rejected the husband’s arguments. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that there was no solid evidence that the wife was gainfully employed. The only proof put forward was her mention as a “tailor” in the marriage certificate and membership in a tailors’ association. She had also stated that she occasionally visited a tailoring shop abroad run by her brother. The Court felt that such occasional or nominal connection to employment was not enough to deny her maintenance altogether.
The Court emphasized that the purpose of Section 125 CrPC and its counterpart Section 144 BNSS is protective and welfare-oriented. These provisions exist to safeguard persons, like wives and children, who may not have financial stability or sufficient means to ensure their own upkeep. It held that even if a wife earns something from a temporary job, she is not automatically disentitled from claiming maintenance—what matters is whether that income allows her to maintain a reasonable standard of living, like that which she enjoyed in her matrimonial home.
On the question of separation, the husband claimed that the wife was living apart from him without sufficient reason, and argued this should disqualify her from receiving maintenance. The Family Court had found limited evidence of cruelty, but the High Court found the wife’s testimony credible, noting that her statements were not effectively challenged in cross-examination. The Court held that her living separately was justified, and she was entitled to maintenance.
Ultimately, the High Court allowed her claim for maintenance. It ordered the husband to pay her a monthly maintenance of ₹8,000, but upheld the Family Court’s award for the children, finding it adequate. The Court reversed the Family Court’s earlier decision denying her maintenance because she lacked a permanent job, stating that the lack of a fixed or permanent income does not remove her right to support when her earnings do not suffice.
In line with legal precedents, the Court reiterated that “unable to maintain herself” under Section 125 does not necessitate that the wife be destitute or penniless. Instead, the test is whether she can sustain, more or less, the same standard of life she shared with her husband before their separation. The Court also upheld that an able-bodied husband is presumed to be capable of supporting his family unless he proves genuine inability, bearing the burden of showing that he cannot pay.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.