Temporary Employment Does Not Disqualify Wife From Seeking Maintenance U/S 125 CrPC: Kerala High Court
The family court initially rejected their claim for maintenance, noting the wife’s salary of ₹21,175 and the elder daughter's adulthood.
Justice Kauser Edappagath, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court ruled that a wife’s temporary employment and income from it do not disqualify her from seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
In the present case, the wife and her elder daughter approached the family court seeking a monthly maintenance of ₹45,000 each from the husband, a Merchant Navy employee. They claimed to have no other source of income, but the husband contested the application, asserting that the wife was employed with Matsyafed and that their elder daughter was now an adult and therefore ineligible for maintenance.
The family court initially rejected their claim for maintenance, noting the wife’s salary of ₹21,175 and the elder daughter's adulthood. However, the Court ordered the husband to provide certain insurance policy certificates to the wife. Both the wife and the husband filed revision petitions before the Kerala High Court, challenging the family court's order.
A Bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath said, "Thus, the law is well settled 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. The test is whether the wife is able to maintain herself more or less in the status in which her husband has maintained her. The wife is entitled to live the same standard of life as she lived along with the husband,"
Advocate Jayaprakash EP represented himself in the matter.
The Court clarified that the core principle guiding maintenance claims is not whether the wife is employed, but whether she can maintain the same standard of living she had while living with her husband. The Court reiterated that a wife is entitled to seek maintenance under Section 125 CrPC if her income, although she may be employed, is insufficient to meet her needs and provide for her dependent children.
The Court added, "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,"
Furthermore, the Court clarified that a husband, even if not currently employed, has a duty to support his wife. The Court added, "The husband who is capable of earning could not evade his lawful duty of maintaining his wife merely by stating that he is not presently employed. An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning enough to support his family unless he can prove genuine inability with concrete evidence,"
The Court also examined the claim for maintenance by the elder daughter. It distinguished between the provisions of Section 125 CrPC and Section 20(3) of HAMA. Section 125 CrPC does not require a father to provide maintenance to an adult unmarried daughter unless she is unable to maintain herself due to physical or mental disabilities. In contrast, under Section 20(3) of HAMA, a father must maintain an unmarried daughter who is unable to support herself. However, since neither the wife nor the daughter had specifically invoked HAMA for maintenance, the Court ruled that the elder daughter was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC but could approach the family court for maintenance under HAMA.
The High Court upheld the family court's order directing the husband to hand over the insurance policy certificates but set aside the decision to deny maintenance to the wife.
The case was remitted to the family court for reconsideration of the amount of maintenance to be awarded to the wife.
Cause Title: Jayaprakash E.P v. Sheney & Anr., [2025:KER:5702]
Appearance:
Respondents: Advocates Jacob P Alex, Joseph P Alex, Manu Sankar P, and Amal Amir Ali
