Wife Who Discontinued Her Job Due To Marital Obligations Entitled To Maintenance: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court was considering a criminal revision petition preferred under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act.
While upholding an order granting maintenance in favour of the wife, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that when the wife discontinued her job due to marital obligations as well as compulsions, she would be entitled to get maintenance till she again gets the job of sufficient income to maintain herself.
The High Court was considering a criminal revision petition preferred under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order of the Family Court whereby an amount of Rs 40,000 per month was awarded as maintenance in favour of the respondent wife.
The Single Bench of Justice Gajendra Singh held, “There is difference between "may earn" and "is earning". When the wife discontinued her job due to marital obligations as well as compulsions than she require maintenance and when husband is in well paid profession then wife is entitled to get maintenance and till she again get the job of sufficient income to maintain herself. In break down of marital relations within a short span after they entered into marriage with expectations of high quality life is not so easy for each person. There is no evidence that the wife is earning. The awarded amount is proportionate to the standard as the husband who previously worked in United Kingdom and now working as Assistant Manager in Genpact Pvt. Ltd. an American Company is expected to provide to his wife.”
Advocate Ashutosh Surana represented the Petitioner while Advocate Prasun Pandey represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The couple got married in 2018 and the marriage was registered under the provision of Special Marriage Act, 1954. They lived together for four years and in 2023, an application claiming maintenance of Rs 50,000 per month was preferred alongwith the cost of Rs.15,0000 towards the proceedings alleging that the wife was subjected to cruelty for non-fulfilling the unlawful demands of her husband. At the time of the settlement of the marriage proposal, the revision petitioner was working in the United Kingdom. The revision petitioner denied all the allegations and pleaded that the respondent/wife was highly educated, earning Rs 50,000 from her job. Appreciating the evidence, the Family Court allowed the application partially. Challenging the award of maintenance, the revision petition was preferred by the husband on the ground that the wife was living separately without any reasonable cause.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the move to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent could not be materialised and was dismissed. “Accordingly, the revision petitioner/husband cannot take any benefit of that proceedings. "Streedhan" is an absolute property of a woman. No plea can be raised that "Streedhan" is with the wife”, it added.
Highlighting the fact that there is a difference between "may earn" and "is earning", the Bench held that the wife would be entitled to get maintenance if she left her job due to marital compulsions.
The Bench found that the awarded amount was proportionate to the standard, as the husband, who previously worked in the United Kingdom, has been working as an Assistant Manager in Genpact Pvt. Ltd., an American company, and was thus expected to provide for his wife.
Thus, holding that the findings of the Family Court required no interference, the Bench dismissed the revision petition. “The revision petitioner is at liberty to approach before the learned Family Court under Section 145 of BNSS, 2023 for modification of the order either the wife gets job or any other change of circumstance occurs”, it concluded.
Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation:2026:MPHC-IND:7791)