The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench has held that a wife cannot be denied maintenance under Section 125 CrPC merely because she is highly educated or possesses postgraduate qualifications, in the absence of evidence showing that she is actually earning or capable of maintaining herself independently. The Court further clarified that mere non-compliance with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not automatically disentitle a wife from claiming maintenance.

The Court observed that the expression “refusal” under Section 125(4) CrPC contemplates a genuine offer by the husband to resume cohabitation, coupled with a deliberate refusal by the wife. It held that a mere request or invitation without demonstrable willingness on the husband’s part to maintain and accommodate the wife would not amount to an offer in law. The Bench further noted that failure to live with the husband and refusal to live with the husband are conceptually distinct.

Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke observed, “…It is admitted by her that she is studied up to post graduation. Admittedly, it is not the case of present applicant that she is serving any where or earning something. The judicial note can be taken that in the present era, there is unemployment. Even the person who obtained the higher decree, specialization, they are also unable to get the jobs. Therefore, merely because she is educated lady is not sufficient to held that she is able-bodied person and able to maintain herself as she has competed her post-graduation. The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves…”.

Advocate Vishwadeep Mate appeared for the applicant and Advocate Jyoti Dharmadhikari appeared for the non-applicant.

As per the facts of the present case, the dispute arose out of matrimonial discord following the marriage between the parties in 2011. The wife alleged that she was subjected to harassment, suspicion regarding her character, verbal abuse, and ill-treatment by the husband and his family members. According to her, she was ultimately driven out of the matrimonial home and was later denied re-entry despite attempts at reconciliation. She thereafter filed proceedings seeking restitution of conjugal rights, which were decided in her favour.

The husband resisted the maintenance claim by contending that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home, failed to comply with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, and was therefore disentitled from claiming maintenance. He further argued that she was a postgraduate and an able-bodied woman capable of earning for herself. It was also contended that he had substantial deductions from his salary and other financial liabilities.

Upon examining the evidence, the High Court found that the husband had failed to establish any genuine effort to resume cohabitation. The Court noted that while the wife had made attempts to return to the matrimonial home, the husband had neither issued notices calling her back nor placed material on record demonstrating willingness to maintain her.

The Court observed that filing a divorce petition without making efforts toward reunion itself reflected unwillingness on the husband’s part to continue cohabitation. It further held that the evidence on record demonstrated “refusal and neglect” by the husband within the meaning of Section 125 CrPC.

“…Even accepting that she is educated lady, but that aspect would not be sufficient to deprive her from getting a maintenance amount. Now it is well settled that while considering the application for grant of maintenance, the status of the parties is a significant factor, encompassing their social standing, lifestyle, and financial background. The reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children must be assessed, including costs for food, clothing, shelter, education, and medical expenses. The applicant's educational and professional qualifications, as well as his employment play a crucial role in evaluating his potential for self-sufficiency. If the applicant has independent source of income this would also be taken into account to determine the quantum of maintenance”, the Bench noted.

“…The phrase ‘unable to maintain herself’ would mean that means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her and would not take within itself the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive somehow. Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves”, the Bench further observed.

However, the High Court partly modified the Family Court’s order after observing that earlier maintenance awarded in connected proceedings had not been adjusted while calculating the final amount payable. Considering the husband’s income, deductions, and liabilities, the Court reduced the maintenance awarded for the later period.

Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the revision application and directed the husband to pay maintenance of ₹10,000 per month to the wife and ₹5,000 per month to the daughter from October 2017 till December 2020, and thereafter ₹12,000 per month to the wife and ₹7,000 per month to the daughter from January 2021 onwards, in addition to amounts already awarded in earlier proceedings. The Court also upheld litigation costs imposed by the Family Court.

Cause Title: X v. Y (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:5952)

Appearances:

Applicant: Vishwadeep Mate, Advocate.

Non-Applicant: Jyoti Dharmadhikari

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Justice Urmila Joshi-PhalkeBombay High Court

Agatha Shukla