‘Education no bar for maintenance’: Court confirms Rs 20,000 monthly sum to woman

The court held that a wife cannot be denied maintenance merely because she is qualified when there is no evidence that she is actually earning sufficient income.

Arguments

The husband had argued that his wife is an educated, employable, and financially independent lady, having sufficient means to maintain herself, and therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance.

He urged that his wife earn from tuition and coaching work and is also supported by her mother’s pension and properties.

He further claimed that after losing his job, he was working only as a freelance chartered accountant with irregular income, making the maintenance amount excessive.

Opposing the plea, the counsel for his wife submitted that she was ‘compelled’ to reside separately due to ‘cruelty, harassment and neglect’ by her husband.

It was further submitted that her husband is a qualified Chartered Accountant, has been working at different places, has undertaken consultancy work, and has failed to produce his income tax returns and complete financial documents.

No evidence

The court observed that despite being a Chartered Accountant and despite having special knowledge of his income, the husband failed to produce income tax returns, complete accounts, professional receipts, bank statements or other reliable financial documents which could have disclosed his true income.

“Facts relating to income, professional earnings and financial capacity are matters especially within the knowledge of the person concerned. Where such a person withholds the best evidence, the court is justified in drawing an adverse inference,” the high court held.

It further observed that the mere fact that the wife is educated cannot disentitle her from maintenance.

“A wife cannot be denied maintenance merely because she is qualified, when there is no evidence that she is actually earning sufficient income,” the order read.

It held that the pension of the mother or properties allegedly belonging to the mother cannot be treated as the independent income of the wife.

No relief to husband

• On the husband’s financial capacity, the court noted that he admitted being a qualified chartered accountant who had worked at several places and had undertaken consultancy assignments.
• It also took note of his admissions regarding owning a car, travelling with his wife by air to destinations and staying in hotels during the marriage.
• After examining the matter, the court held that the husband had neglected to maintain his wife and that he failed to prove that his wife had sufficient independent income.
• “This court finds that opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist; she had sufficient cause to reside separately; the revisionist neglected to maintain her; no sufficient independent income of opposite party no.2 was proved; and the revisionist, being a qualified Chartered Accountant with admitted professional engagement and earning capacity, is under a legal obligation to maintain her,” the order read.
• Observing that the quantum of Rs 20,000 per month is just and reasonable, the court dismissed the plea and directed the husband to continue paying the maintenance.