Divorced Wife Entitled To Maintenance; Mere Earning Capacity Not A Bar: Orissa High Court

"Merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court." Orissa High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a divorced wife is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and her mere earning capacity does not bar this right. A bench of Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo observed that the contentions raised against granting maintenance to an earning or divorced wife are authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court, emphasizing that maintenance must enable the wife to maintain the standard of living she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home.

The petitioner-husband, employed as an Assistant Manager at the State Bank of India, filed a revision petition challenging a Family Court order that granted his divorced wife a monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000 from the date of her application. The marriage between the parties was previously dissolved by a decree of divorce in 2010 on the grounds of desertion. The husband contested the maintenance order under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, alleging that the wife earned a substantial income from a private company and that the subsisting divorce decree disentitled her from claiming financial support.

The primary question before the court was whether a divorced wife retains the statutory right to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. The court was also called upon to determine whether the actual or potential earning capacity of the wife, alongside a long period of separation, operates as an absolute bar to her claim for maintenance.

Divorced Woman Falls Within Definition Of 'Wife'

The court first addressed the husband's contention that the subsistence of a divorce decree disentitled the opposite party from seeking maintenance. Rejecting this argument, the court noted that it was undisputed that the claim was made by a divorced wife. Relying on the Explanation to Section 125 CrPC, the court emphasized that the statutory definition of "wife" explicitly includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.

Earning Capacity Is Not An Absolute Bar

Dealing with the assertion that the wife was earning Rs. 6,00,000 per annum, the High Court observed that the husband failed to adduce any oral or documentary evidence before the Family Court to prove this income. Conversely, the husband's income of Rs. 60,000 per month was clearly established through his salary slips. The court heavily relied on the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Rajnesh v. Neha, which clarified the legal position regarding earning wives.

Standard Of Living Remains The Benchmark

Applying the Supreme Court precedent, the court highlighted that a wife's capacity to earn does not automatically absolve the husband of his financial responsibilities. The bench reiterated the mandate that the assessing court must determine whether the independent income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain a standard of living consistent with what she enjoyed in her matrimonial home.

Maintenance To Be Awarded From Date Of Application

The court also addressed the temporal scope of the maintenance award. Upholding the Family Court's decision to grant maintenance from the date the application was filed in 2017, the High Court again deferred to the directives in Rajnesh v. Neha. The bench noted that the right to claim maintenance must date back to the initiation of proceedings, as the pendency of the case is largely beyond the applicant's control.

"The right to claim maintenance must date back to the date of filing the application, since the period during which the maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the applicant."

"The amount directed to be paid under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. being in the nature of a money decree, the petitioner shall, if so advised file affidavit indicating whether he will and how secure the amount directed."

Enforcement As A Money Decree

Recognizing the practical difficulties women face in realizing maintenance awards, the High Court underscored that an order under Section 125 CrPC operates in the nature of a money decree. The court took judicial notice of the husband's stable employment as a bank manager and required him to take proactive steps to demonstrate his compliance with the lower court's directive to secure the livelihood of his former wife.

The High Court adjourned the matter for fresh admission in the week commencing April 20, 2026. However, to ensure that the wife is not deprived of her rightful sustenance during the pendency of the revision petition, the court explicitly directed the husband to file an affidavit detailing how he proposes to secure the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court.

Date of Decision: 23 March 2026