Wife's Earning Can’t Be Sole Criterion For Denying Maintenance: Gujarat High Court

The High Court was considering an application whereby the applicant sought the quashing of a judgment of the Family Court awarding a sum of Rs 15,000 as monthly maintenance to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent wife.

The Single Bench of Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar held, “In view of the above, the Court is of the considered opinion that the wife's earning cannot be the sole criterion for denying her maintenance. The husband's objection to the wife's claim for maintenance is unsustainable when addressing an application. However, it is clarified that if any final order is passed, the learned trial Court is directed to adjust the amount of maintenance appropriately and decide the matter expeditiously and independently, without being influenced by the order of this Court under this provision by a destitute wife or parents, the Court is dealing with marginalized sections of society. The objective is to achieve "social justice," in line with the constitutional vision enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution of India.”

Advocate Tapaswi P Raval represented the Applicant, while Additional Public Prosecutor Rohan Raval represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The respondent wife had filed an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking enhancement of maintenance to Rs 30,000 per month, alleging that the petitioner was earning about Rs 70-75,000 per month and had subjected her to mental and physical cruelty before driving her out of the matrimonial home. The petitioner filed his reply stating that his gross salary was Rs. 69,354 and net take-home salary was Rs 54,499, out of which he had financial obligations including maintenance to his parents, rent, and loan installments.

The Family Court partly allowed the application and awarded Rs 15,000 per month to the respondent wife as maintenance from the date of the application. Earlier, the respondent wife had filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which came to be decided by awarding Rs 5,000 per month as maintenance from the date of filing.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the contents of the application as well as the conclusions of the Family Court, the Bench noted that the wife was unable to maintain herself and was neglected by her husband. “Furthermore, it is important to note that the mere fact that the wife is earning is not a valid ground to reject her claim for maintenance”, it added. Reference was made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Sunita Kachwaha and Ors. vs. Anil Kachwaha (2014), wherein it has been observed that merely because the wife is earning and may be highly qualified, it cannot be a reason to deny her claim for maintenance.

Affirming the husband’s legal and ethical duty of the husband to maintain his wife and children, the Bench stated, “It is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife and to provide financial support to her and he cannot shirk his responsibility as husband to maintain his legally wedded wife, which is his social and lawful duty towards wife would be entitled to the same standard of living, which they were enjoying while living with them.”

The Bench also explained that under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C., an application for enhancement of maintenance can be made upon a change in circumstances. It was noticed that there was a substantial increase in the husband’s salary to approximately Rs. 70,000 to Rs. 75,000, and he did not have any other substantial liabilities, as his mother was a retired government employee and a pensioner, his father was self-sustaining, and his sister was also employed. Holding that the husband’s primary responsibility was to maintain the applicant, the Bench held, “In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Family Judge has rightly exercised jurisdiction and modified the earlier order of maintenance so as to award a sufficient amount commensurate with the respondent’s status and income. Accordingly, the maintenance amount has been enhanced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 15,000/-, i.e., an increase of Rs. 10,000/-.”

The Bench thus dismissed the application in light of the fact that the application failed to satisfy the test for exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

Cause Title: A v. State of Gujarat (Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:20342)

Appearance

Applicant: Advocates Tapaswi P Raval, Bhargav K Mehta

Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Rohan Raval, Advocate Harshad D Barot

Click here to read/download Order