‘Qualified’ wives imposing burden on husbands can be denied maintenance: Allahabad High Court

Divorce case and plea for maintenance

• In this case, the husband, who is a neurosurgeon, had filed a divorce petition.
• His wife filed an application for maintenance under sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
• While the application under Section 24 (maintenance to spouse) was dismissed, the one under Section 26 (custody of children) for maintenance of the children was allowed.
• The wife’s counsel argued before the Allahabad High Court that the family court failed to acknowledge that she was removed from her place of work after her husband filed the divorce case against her.
• It was further contended that she is entitled to be supported by the husband to ensure that she can sustain the same standard of living which she enjoyed before the separation.
• Opposing the plea, the counsel for the husband argued that his wife is a trained, specialised gynaecologist who could earn more than him.
• It was further argued that the family court dismissed her plea under Section 24 as she is capable of maintaining herself because of her qualifications.

‘Earning handsomely’

• At the outset, the Allahabad High Court noted that the woman is a trained gynaecologist, being a postgraduate possessing a degree in MD (Gynaecology). It further noted that she is capable of earning handsomely in her line of expertise.
• The court rejected the argument made by the woman’s counsel that she is not working.
• After going through the order passed by the family court, the Allahabad High Court noted its findings, which held that the woman was earning “handsomely” based on her ITRs which reflected that she was earning more than Rs 31 lakh per annum, the Allahabad High Court bench observed.
• The court, therefore, dismissed her plea.

‘Mere earning of wife does not disentitle her’

In another case, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a man’s prayer challenging a family court order directing him to pay maintenance to his wife, pleading she is educated, working and financially independent.

The husband claimed that her take-home salary is over Rs 11 lakh annually, while the wife stated he was drawing a package of Rs 40 lakh per annum.

Justice Madan Pal Singh stated in the order, “Even assuming that wife has some source of income, the material available on record clearly reflects a substantial disparity in the earning capacity and financial status of the parties. The income attributed to the wife cannot be said to be sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living to which she was accustomed during her matrimonial life.”

“The court is unable to accept the submission that mere employment or earning of the wife is, by itself, a ground to deny maintenance. The object of Section 125 CrPC is not merely to prevent destitution, but to ensure that the wife is able to live with dignity, consistent with the status of the husband,” the bench observed.

Section 125 under the Code of Criminal Procedure pertains to the maintenance of wives, children and parents.

The court, in its order, quoted a Supreme Court judgment, stating, “…mere earning of the wife does not disentitle her from 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.”