Mere Educational Qualification Not Sufficient to Deny Maintenance to Wife; Maintenance Meant for Sustenance, Not Survival: Allahabad High Court

“A Woman’s Statutory Right to Maintenance Cannot Be Defeated on Speculative Grounds of Her Capacity to Earn”, In a significant judgment Allahabad High Court, presided by Justice Garima Prashad, set aside a Family Court’s decision which had denied maintenance to a woman on the basis that she was educationally qualified and had refused to rejoin her husband during restitution proceedings. The Court emphatically held that mere refusal to return to the matrimonial home, despite a Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act decree, does not disqualify a wife from claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., nor does her educational background imply actual income in the absence of proof.

The case arose from a criminal revision filed by the estranged wife and her minor son, challenging the order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr. The Family Court had rejected the wife's maintenance claim and awarded only Rs. 3,000 per month to the adolescent son, despite the husband’s admitted gross monthly salary of Rs. 48,350/-.

“Refusal to Resume Cohabitation Not a Bar to Maintenance”: High Court Refuses to Apply Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.

The High Court rejected the Family Court’s reliance on Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., which disqualifies a wife from maintenance if she is living separately without sufficient cause. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Rina Kumari vs. Dinesh Kumar Mahato, (2025) 3 SCC 33, the Court clarified:

“Refusal of wife to stay away from her matrimonial home, notwithstanding the passing of restitution decree, could not be used against her as disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.”

The Family Court had erred in presuming that the wife's refusal to join the husband after a Section 9 HMA decree amounted to absence of ‘sufficient cause.’ The High Court strongly disagreed with such a technical and rigid interpretation, especially when the husband’s conduct revealed deeper issues, including his denial of paternity of the minor child.

Denial of Fatherhood is “Indicative of Matrimonial Discord”, Says High Court

The Court was particularly critical of the husband’s denial of paternity, despite lacking any conclusive evidence. The High Court remarked that this attempt to avoid responsibility for the child spoke volumes about the nature of the matrimonial dispute, observing:

“The opposite party No.2’s conduct in denying the fatherhood to the minor child would have been probably the last straw adding to the suffering due to the ill treatment in her matrimonial home.”

The Family Court had rightly rejected the husband's plea on this aspect but failed to appreciate its evidentiary value in assessing the credibility of the wife’s claims of cruelty and neglect.

“Potential to Earn Not Equivalent to Actual Earning”: Court Rebukes Speculative Findings on Wife’s Employment

One of the most striking errors committed by the Family Court was its reliance on the wife's educational qualifications to deny her maintenance. The lower court found that the wife had concealed her M.A. degree and ITI diploma in tailoring and concluded that she was capable of earning.

However, the High Court emphasized that capacity to earn is distinct from actual gainful employment, and in the absence of any cogent proof that the wife was working or had independent income, such inferences were speculative and unjust. Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sunita Kachwaha vs. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715, the Court observed:

“Merely because the wife is a qualified post graduate, it would not be sufficient to hold that she is in a position to maintain herself...even if she is earning something, it would not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance.”

Reiterating the same principle, the Court invoked Shamina Faruqi vs. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705, and stated:

“The statutory right of the wife to maintenance cannot be permitted to be parted away and infringed by setting up a case that she had the capacity to earn.”

The Court also highlighted the social reality of women being unable to join the workforce despite being educated due to domestic responsibilities, stating that “such sweeping assumptions are deeply insensitive.”

“Maintenance of Rs. 3,000 to Minor Son Is Meagre and Inadequate”: Court Calls Out Misapplication of Rajnesh v. Neha

Taking serious note of the meagre maintenance awarded to the minor son, the Court criticized the Family Court for ignoring the gross income of Rs. 48,350/- of the father and for wrongly permitting deductions of Rs. 35,124/- towards alleged loans.

The Court relied on the guiding principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, which suggest that:

“Maintenance should be around 25% of the net income of the husband.”

The Allahabad High Court concluded that the Family Court’s determination of net payable salary as Rs. 13,226/- per month was erroneous and unjustified. The father’s legal obligation to support both his wife and adolescent son was reaffirmed, and the need for a fair, reasonable, and realistic maintenance amount was stressed.

“Maintenance is Not a Mere Monetary Claim – It is a Judicial Responsibility Impacting Dignity and Survival”

In a strongly worded observation, Justice Garima Prashad emphasized that maintenance is not merely a matter of money, but of dignity, sustenance, and stability. The Court underlined that:

“This exercise is not a mere adjudication on claims for money, but a judicial responsibility that affects the dignity, sustenance and stability of life of the applicant.”

Rejecting the lower court’s technical and narrow approach, the High Court reiterated the humanistic and practical spirit of Section 125 Cr.P.C., aimed at preventing destitution and ensuring a dignified life consistent with the status of the husband.

Allowing the criminal revision, the Court held:

“The impugned order has been passed without properly appreciating the revisionist No.1/wife’s financial incapacity...It is misplaced for a husband to rely solely on the qualification of his wife to evade his legal obligation to maintain her.”

The order dated 03.10.2024 was accordingly set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Family Court for fresh adjudication of maintenance payable to both the wife and minor son.

The Family Court has been directed to pass a reasoned and lawful order within one month, while keeping all rights and contentions of parties open.

Date of Decision: 08.01.2026