While directing a man to pay maintenance to his wife, the Kerala High Court has held 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.

The High Court was considering two revision petitions challenging the order passed by the Family Court.

The Single Bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath held, “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. For these reasons, the finding in the impugned order that the wife is not entitled to claim maintenance from the husband cannot be sustained. The Family Court erred in not awarding maintenance to the wife, who does not have any permanent source of income.”

Advocate R.Surendran represented the Petitioner while Advocate K.K. Chandralekha represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The first petitioner in the maintenance case before the Family Court was the legally wedded wife of the respondent husband. Two children (second and third petitioners) were born out of the wedlock. The wife and children filed the maintenance case against the husband, claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs 15,000 and Rs. 10,000 each, respectively. The Family Court rejected the claim of the wife and granted monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 6,000 each to the children. The wife filed a revision petition challenging the rejection of her claim for maintenance as well as the quantum of maintenance awarded to the children. The husband filed a Revision Petition challenging the quantum of maintenance awarded to the children.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the undisputed fact that the husband and the wife were living separately, and the children were living with the wife. The maintenance to the wife was denied by the Family Court on the grounds that the wife was a tailor by profession and had sufficient means to maintain herself. The High Court further noticed that the wife left the company of the husband without any valid reason, and hence she was not entitled to claim maintenance.

The Bench explained that 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. “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”, it added.

Referring to the judgment in Jayaprakash E.P. v. Sheney P. (2025), the Bench reiterated that even if a wife has the capability to earn or is earning something, it does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance from her husband. As per the Bench, the mere fact that in the marriage certificate, the occupation of the wife was shown as a tailor, and she had taken membership in the tailors’ association, would not mean that she was actually doing tailoring work and was able to maintain herself. It was further noticed that there was no evidence on record to show that the wife was actually employed as a tailor and earned income out of it for her livelihood.

The Bench also clarified that a wife who chooses to live separately without sufficient reason is disentitled to get maintenance under Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C., but if valid grounds, such as cruelty or desertion, exist, the wife is still entitled to get maintenance. According to the wife, there was sufficient cause for residing separately from her husband. She gave evidence that the husband exercised cruelty on her; ultimately, he took her to her parental house and thereafter never came to take her back. The Bench was of the view that there were sufficient instances to justify the wife living separately from her husband.

“Thus, both the grounds found by the Family Court to deny maintenance to the wife couldnot be sustained”, it held while allowing the wife’s petition in part. The Bench directed the husband to give maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs 8,000 per month over and above the maintenance granted to the children by the Family Court.

Cause Title: AB v. XY (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:86193)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocate R.Surendran

Respondent: Advocates K.K. Chandralekha, K.C. Santhoshkumar

Click here to read/download Order





Kerala High CourtJustice Kauser Edappagath

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.