Maintenance can’t be denied just because wife is earning: HC upholds Rs 15,000 monthly maintenance

allomonoi

• Wife can't be denied maintenance just because she is employed
• Court: Maintenance upholds wife's dignity and living standards
• Allahabad HC upholds Rs 15,000 monthly maintenance order

Did our AI summary help?

The Allahabad High Court recently held that a wife cannot be denied maintenance merely because she is employed or capable of earning. The high court pointed out that the object of Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) is not merely to prevent poverty, but also to ensure that a wife lives with dignity in accordance with her husband’s standard of living.

“The Court has reiterated the position that mere employment of a wife does not by itself disentitle her to maintenance. The decisive test is whether such income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as enjoyed in the matrimonial home,” said Priyanka Desai, Co-Founder, Partner, The Fort Circle.

What is the case?

The case titled Ravinder Singh Bisht v. State of U.P. and Another concerns a criminal revision filed before the Allahabad High Court challenging a maintenance order passed by the Family Court, Ghaziabad. The Family Court had directed Ravinder Singh Bisht to pay Rs 15,000 per month as maintenance to his wife, Prabhjot Kaur, under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The husband contended that the order was unjustified because his wife was educated, employed, and financially independent. He relied on her Income Tax documents showing an annual income of Rs 11,28,780. He also argued that she had voluntarily left the matrimonial home and refused to live with his aged parents. Additionally, he claimed that he had left his job to take care of his ailing parents and lacked sufficient financial means to pay maintenance.

On the other hand, the wife argued that the husband had concealed his actual income. It was brought on record that he had worked with J.P. Morgan from April 2018 to April 2020 and earned approximately Rs 40 lakh per annum. She contended that mere employment of a wife does not disentitle her from maintenance, especially when there is a significant disparity in income and status between the spouses.

“No convincing or reliable material has been placed on record to establish that the revisionist lacks sufficient means so as to relieve him of his statutory obligation to maintain his wife,” the Court said.

The High Court observed that even if the wife was earning, there was a clear financial disparity between the parties. It held that maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is meant to ensure that a wife can live with dignity and maintain a standard of living similar to that enjoyed during the marriage. The Court relied on Supreme Court judgments in Shailja v. Khobbanna and Rajnesh v. Neha, which clarify that mere earning by the wife is not a ground to deny maintenance.

Finding no illegality or irregularity in the Family Court’s order, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the criminal revision and upheld the maintenance award of Rs 15,000 per month.

The Court emphasises that maintenance is meant to ensure dignity and address financial disparity, and that the husband cannot avoid his statutory obligation merely by showing that the wife is employed or by making unsupported claims of financial hardship. “The judgment does not change the law but clarifies its interpretation. It makes it clear that under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the question is not simply whether the wife is earning, but whether her income is sufficient to maintain a standard of living similar to that enjoyed during the marriage,” said Raadhika Chawla, Advocate, Delhi High Court.

What does this ruling mean for similar cases?

The broader implication of this judgment is that in similar maintenance cases, Courts will prioritise economic disparity and the standard of living during marriage rather than merely on whether the wife is earning. “Courts must assess real earning capacity, past income, qualifications and overall financial status rather than accept bald assertions of unemployment or voluntary resignation,” said Alay Razvi, Managing Partner, Accord Juris.

“The decision will also shape strategy across parallel remedies under Section 125 or 144 BNSS, the DV Act, and HMA, where earning wives can no longer be summarily excluded. At a normative level, it reinforces a dignity-based standard of maintenance, moving the discourse beyond mere subsistence,” said Shivam Kunal, Senior Associate, B Shanker Associates.