Highly Qualified Jobless Wife Is Entitled To Maintenance Until She Secures Sufficient Means To Support Herself: Kerala High Court

The Bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath observed, “Thus, the expression ‘unable to maintain’ in Section 125 of Cr.P.C must be interpreted to mean the actual inability to sustain rather than mere potential earning capacity. The expression does not mean mere capacity or capability to earn. So much so, a highly qualified wife, if not working and earning, cannot be denied maintenance on the ground that she has the capacity to earn. In other words, a highly qualified jobless wife is entitled to maintenance until she secures sufficient means to support herself. For these reasons, I cannot concur with the view of the Delhi High Court in Megha Khetrapal (supra) that a well-qualified wife, having the earning capacity but remaining idle, cannot claim maintenance from her husband.”

Advocate Ajit G Anjarlekar appeared on behalf of the Revision-Petitioner, whereas Advocate RB Rajesh appeared for the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

An application was filed by the Respondents, i.e. Wife and Child of the Petitioner-husband, before the Family Court claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs 15,000/- and Rs 7,000/- respectively. The Petitioner-Husband contested the application on two grounds: (i) Respondent-wife is a well-qualified teacher and has sufficient means to maintain herself, and (ii) She left the company of the Petitioner-husband without any valid reason, and hence she is not entitled to claim maintenance. The Family Court dismissed those contentions and granted monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs 6,000/- and Rs 4,500/- respectively to the respondents. Hence, the Petitioner-husband filed the present revision petition.

Observations of the Court

The Court raised the issue of whether, in the present case, a wife can be denied maintenance if she is well-qualified and capable of earning but not working.

The Court held, “The test is whether the wife is able to maintain herself more or less in the status that her husband has maintained her. The wife is entitled to live the same standard of life as she lived with the husband…Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (Section 144 of BNSS) is a measure of social justice, especially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional scheme of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. The object of the provision being one to achieve social justice for the marginalised members of society - destitute wives, hapless children and parents, it is to be construed liberally for the welfare and benefit of the wife, children and parents. While interpreting a provision in a beneficial legislation, the court must always interpret the words in such a manner that the relief contemplated by the provision is secured and not denied to the class intended to be benefited.

Reliance was placed on the landmark judgments of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another [(2021) 2 SCC 324], where it was held that even if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband.

The Bench also referred to its recent judgment in Jayaprakash E.P. v. Sheney P. (2025 (1) KLT 815) where it took the view that 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.

Conclusion

It was concluded that the argument of the Petitioner-husband that the Respondent-wife, being a well-educated lady capable of securing a job, is not entitled to claim maintenance from the Petitioner-husband, therefore, must fail.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the revision petition.

Cause Title: Ratheesh Chandran v. Rema Devi S and Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:91285]

Appearances:

Revision-Petitioner: Advocates Ajit G Anjarlekar, Govind Padmanaabhan and G.P.Shinod

Respondents: Advocate RB Rajesh

Click here to read/download the Order.