Duty Of Husband To Support Wife's Education For Her Empowerment: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court while allowing maintenance claim of a wife has held that it is the duty of the husband to support wife's education so as to empower her.

The Court was considering a Revision Petition against an order of the Family Court whereby the Application for maintenance was rejected.

The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh held, "....If the husband has a duty towards his parents, then he has also the duty to complete the course that would enhance the capability of the wife and to empower her. Equality in marital tie up does not mean development of only one and only restrictions for the other especially wife. In view of the above, the findings of the trial court in rejecting the  maintenance cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside..."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Pragya Swami, while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Nipun Choudhary.

Facts of the Case

The couple married in 2018 and the Application claiming maintenance was preferred in the same year alleging cruelty, neglect of maintenance, inability to maintain herself and sufficiency of means of the Husband with further pleading that she requires ₹25,000/- per month for maintenance. It was alleged that from the first day she was subjected to demand of dowry, resulting in cruelty for non fulfilment of the demand, and she is residing at Ratlam since 2015, as she was ousted from the matrimonial home in 2018. 

The Application for maintenance was opposed and it was stated that there was no demand of dowry and that they have been falsely implicated in this proceeding through the advocate sister of the Wife. It was argued that she was residing separately without any justification and is a qualified doctor. The Counsel submitted that she rendered services in various hospitals and earns ₹45,000/- per month. The Husband belongs to humble family and his aged parents are dependent on him. They are suffering from chest pain and gastro ailments along with age related ailments, hence prayed for dismissal of the Petition.

The Revisionist challenged the impugned Trial Court order on the ground that renewing the registration for practice does not raise a presumption that she is working as a doctor.

It was contended that she is jobless and is not earning anything and is financially dependent over her father. Her Counsel argued that she applied for post graduation in Swasthya Kalyan hospital and borrowed money from bank. The Husband is skilled and qualified person working as a Technician (Mechanical) in Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd (ONGC) and getting ₹74,000/- per month as salary. 

Reasoning By Court 

The Court found that the findings of the Trial Court that the Revision Petitioner is living separately for no sufficient cause are contrary to the evidence and proper understanding of Section 125(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

"...He exhausted his energy to demonstrate that the revision petitioner is earning as Homeopathic Medical Practitioner. His attempt failed in para-14 of her cross examination where she admits that the so called service of revision petitioner was temporary to address the Covid-19 situation and that come to an end on 01.04.2022",  the Court observed.

It stressed that entering into marital tie does not mean the end of the personality of the wife, and while the husband's approach towards his parents is appreciable, he cannot totally ignore the wife.

The Court ruled that he has an obligation to empower his wife.

"After completing the course if the revision petitioner/wife gets job or there is a change in the circumstances and there is no reconciliation between the parties, the revision petitioner may file for modification of the order as permissible under section 127 of the Cr.P.C presently section 146 of the BNSS, 2023", the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: V v. SS (2025:MPHC-IND:30316)

Click here to read/ download Order