'Can't stop wife from asking for maintenance': Allahabad HC orders husband cannot avoid statutory obligation just because a wife is educated or can earn

The Allahabad High Court has recently ruled in an interim judgement that a wife's educational qualification or her ability to earn should not disqualify her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).The judgment came after the husband appealed against the order of the Principal Judge of the family court, Agra, which mandated him to pay his wife Rs 15,000 monthly as maintenance.The couple's marriage took place on August 31, 2014 in Ahmedabad following Sikh rites and ceremonies. However, the union lasted only 20 days as per the husband's claim, who said that the wife left on the 20th day and has been living with her father ever since, subsequently filing the maintenance case against him. He also pointed out that she had an MBA degree and was previously employed with Kotak Mahindra and E-Clerx, a multinational company at Pune and with Quess Corporation, where she earned an annual salary of Rs 3.36 lakh. Thus, he argued that she was capable of finding a job and earning over 50,000 monthly, but had chosen not to, for reasons best known to her.On the other hand, the wife argued that the husband is a partner of a big education consultancy company in Ahmedabad, making Rs 5 crore annually. She also claimed that his family kicked her out of their home shortly after their wedding, while making illegal dowry demands. This prompted her to initially file a police complaint at the Women Police Station, Agra.While the wife admitted that she was highly educated, she pointed out that she was currently unemployed, dependent on her father and incapable of maintaining herself while he allegedly enjoyed a lavish lifestyle. Thus, she had taken legal action to demand Rs25,000 monthly maintenance from him.The Allahabad High Court found the husband's behaviour suspicious as the records showed that he was the proprietor of an education consultancy in Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, which was set up in 2001. This property where the consultancy operates is about 1,000 square feet and consists of a ground floor plus a four-storey structure, registered under his mother's and sister's names.However, the husband claimed that he was unaware whether the firm paid rent for the said premises. The high court said that such evasive responses further undermined his claims of financial hardship.The high court also noted that he had pursued education in Canada from 2012 to 2014 and thereafter returned to India and did not take employment anywhere. The husband himself admitted that he had been engaged in the business since 1998, dealing in IELTS coaching, visa consultancy and related services. According to his ITR for the assessment year 2022, his gross income was shown as Rs 6.16 lakh.Thus, the court doubted his inability to pay the maintenance money.On April 20, 2026, the Allahabad High Court gave its interim judgement. The court observed that during the cross-examination, the wife admitted that she had been employed at various places prior to marriage, holds an MBA degree and earned approximately Rs37,000 monthly for over two years. But she consistently maintained that at the time of filing the maintenance application, she was unemployed, had no provident fund account and was actively seeking employment."The absence of documentary proof such as a resume, though noted, cannot by itself negate her claim of present inability to maintain herself, particularly when assessed in the context of matrimonial breakdown," said the high court.The court also noted that the husband had produced certain account statements of his wife before the Family Court on the basis of which it was recorded that her income was approximately Rs3.36 lakh in the assessment year 2018-19.He also contended that she failed to place on record complete financial disclosures, as contemplated by the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324.The court said that the mere fact that the wife is educated or possesses the capacity to earn does not, by itself, disentitle her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. "What is required to be considered is her actual and present ability to maintain herself in a manner commensurate with the standard of living she enjoyed in the matrimonial home."The court said that unless it is shown that she is gainfully employed and earning sufficient income to sustain herself, the husband cannot avoid his statutory obligation.In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316, clearly held that the expression "unable to maintain herself" does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute and the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance subsists notwithstanding the wife's earning capacity."Thus, the entitlement to maintenance must be assessed in light of the social and economic status of the husband and not merely on the basis of the wife's past earnings or educational qualifications," said the court.As per a report by LiveLaw, the high court concluded that the Rs 15,000 monthly award was neither just nor fair given the socio-economic status of the parties. So, the single judge sent the case back to the Family Court for a fresh decision on the maintenance amount within six months. In the interim, the husband was told to pay off the current arrears and keep up with the regular payments until the matter is re-evaluated.