Temporary Employment Does Not Disqualify Wife From Claiming Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC: Kerala High Court

Kerala High Court set aside the Family Court’s denial of maintenance to the wife, holding that temporary employment and meagre income cannot bar her right to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath ruled that the wife’s earning of ₹21,175/- per month as a Data Entry Operator on a temporary contract was insufficient to maintain herself and live at the standard of her matrimonial home. The court remitted the matter to the Family Court to determine the quantum of maintenance afresh.

The High Court also upheld the Family Court’s finding that the elder daughter, who had attained majority, was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. However, the court granted her the liberty to file a separate application under Section 20(1) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA) for maintenance until her marriage.

"Maintenance Is A Measure Of Social Justice, Not Limited To Penury"
The wife, Sheney, along with her elder daughter, Amritha, had filed a claim for maintenance of ₹45,000/- per month each, alleging that they were unable to maintain themselves. The Family Court denied their claim, reasoning that the wife had sufficient means due to her job and that the elder daughter was no longer a minor.

Reversing the Family Court's conclusion regarding the wife, the High Court observed: “Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is not limited to cases of penury. The wife is entitled to live at the same standard as in the matrimonial home. Temporary employment and meagre earnings cannot bar a wife’s claim for maintenance.”

Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, the court clarified that even an earning wife can claim maintenance if her income is insufficient to meet her needs. The court emphasized that maintenance laws aim to ensure social justice under Article 15(3) and Article 39 of the Constitution.

The court further added that the wife’s temporary employment and modest salary did not eliminate her need for maintenance, particularly since she was also responsible for the elder daughter’s expenses. Justice Edappagath observed:
“The wife’s temporary job, even if it provides some income, would not disentitle her to claim maintenance from her husband if she asserts that the said income is insufficient for her maintenance.”

"An Able-Bodied Husband Is Presumed Capable Of Earning To Support His Family"
The husband, Jayaprakash, claimed that he was unemployed and surviving on an LIC pension of ₹27,000/- per month, while also supporting the younger daughter, who was pursuing medical education. The High Court dismissed this claim, stating that the husband, a former Merchant Navy Captain, had a history of earning high salaries and was capable of earning to maintain his family. The court noted:
“An able-bodied husband must be presumed capable of earning enough to support his family unless he can prove genuine inability with concrete evidence. The husband in this case failed to provide such evidence, and his claim of unemployment is insufficient to evade his duty of maintenance.”

The court also observed that the husband failed to disclose his assets and liabilities, unlike the wife, and did not file any statement of income to substantiate his claims.

"Elder Daughter’s Maintenance Limited Under Section 125 Crpc, But Right Under HAMA Recognized"
The elder daughter, Amritha, was denied maintenance under Section 125 CrPC as she had attained majority. The High Court upheld this decision, explaining:
“Under Section 125 CrPC, a daughter who has attained majority is entitled to maintenance only if she suffers from physical or mental abnormality that prevents her from maintaining herself. However, under Section 20(1) of the HAMA, an unmarried daughter is entitled to maintenance from her father until her marriage.”

While granting liberty to the elder daughter to file a fresh application under HAMA, the court clarified that such a plea had not been raised before the Family Court or during the revision proceedings.

"Life Insurance Certificates Belonging To Wife And Daughter Must Be Handed Over"
The Family Court had directed the husband to hand over life insurance policy certificates (Exts. B2 to B4) standing in the names of the wife and elder daughter. The High Court upheld this direction, stating:
“The life insurance certificates are in the names of the wife and elder daughter, and they are entitled to possession of the same. There is no ground to interfere with this direction.”

"Denial Of Maintenance To The Wife Was Without Basis"
The High Court rejected the Family Court’s conclusion that the wife had left the matrimonial home without valid reasons. Noting allegations of cruelty and abuse, corroborated by a criminal case under Sections 498, 323, 324, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, the court stated:
“The wife’s claim that she was forced to leave the matrimonial home due to cruelty is supported by evidence. The husband’s failure to prove that he maintained his wife and elder daughter further undermines his defense.”

The court held that the Family Court’s denial of maintenance to the wife was unjustified, as it failed to consider the insufficiency of her income and the husband’s ability to pay.

"The Matter Remitted To The Family Court To Determine Maintenance Quantum"
In conclusion, Justice Kauser Edappagath ordered:
“The Family Court’s finding that the wife is not entitled to maintenance is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the Family Court to determine the quantum of maintenance afresh. The parties shall appear before the Family Court on 18/02/2025, and the court is directed to dispose of the case within three months from the date of appearance.”

The court upheld the denial of maintenance to the elder daughter under Section 125 CrPC but clarified that she could file a fresh claim under Section 20(1) of HAMA. The direction to hand over life insurance certificates to the wife and elder daughter was also affirmed.

Key Observations From The Judgment
Justice Edappagath emphasized that:
Temporary Employment Does Not Bar Maintenance: “Even a wife earning a modest income on a temporary contract is entitled to maintenance if her income is insufficient to maintain her at the standard of her matrimonial home.”
Husband’s Responsibility Is Paramount: “An able-bodied husband is presumed capable of earning to support his family. Failure to prove genuine inability does not exempt him from his duty of maintenance.”
Daughter’s Rights Under HAMA: “The elder daughter’s claim for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC was correctly denied, but she retains the right to seek maintenance under Section 20(1) of HAMA.”
Life Insurance Certificates: “Certificates standing in the names of the wife and daughter belong to them, and the husband cannot withhold their possession.”
The judgment reaffirms the principle that maintenance is a social justice remedy intended to ensure the dignity and welfare of vulnerable family members. By addressing the economic rights of wives and daughters, the court has underscored the duty of husbands and fathers to support their families, even in the face of procedural challenges.

The High Court’s decision has provided a clear pathway for the wife to secure maintenance and for the elder daughter to explore her legal remedies under HAMA. The judgment further highlights the importance of balancing procedural compliance with substantive justice in matrimonial disputes.
 

Date of Decision: 27 January 2025