Wife Can't Be Denied Maintenance Merely Because She Is A Graduate: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a wife cannot be denied maintenance merely because she is a graduate and capable of earning, especially when she is not gainfully employed.

Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri said, "mere fact that the respondent/wife is a graduate would not itself mean that she can be denied of the Right of Maintenance which is conferred upon her by way of a statutory provision unless the right to seek maintenance can be curtailed under the grounds which have been mentioned under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or when her income is so high as compared to the husband and it can be found that she is able to maintain herself, then in that situation she may not be entitled for grant of maintenance."

The Court further said that however, in the present case, the mere fact that the wife is a graduate but having no job would not mean that she can be denied maintenance when she is having no source of income at all and at the same time, she is also having the care and custody of a 6 years old minor female child for whom only an amount of Rs. 5,000 per month as maintenance has been fixed.

"By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the aforesaid even quantum of maintenance is on the higher side. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by leaned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana," it added.

These observations were made while hearing a plea of a husband who had challenged the order passed by the Family Court, Ludhiana vide which a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents i.e. wife and minor daughter for grant of maintenance against the petitioner was allowed and the total maintenance to the tune of  Rs, 14,000 per month (Rs.5000 for minor daughter and Rs.9000 for the wife) was fixed.

The couple had married in 2018 and a female child was born out of wedlock in 2019, who was in custody of the wife.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that at the time of consideration of interim maintenance, his income was Rs. 34,033 per month and he is working as Collection Branch Manager in Piramal Capital Housing Finance Limited, but at the same time he also has other expenditures to make which includes paying premium of Rs. 25,560 per annum and Rs. 9,463  per month as EMI against car loans.

Apart from the above, he also has other liabilities especially to take care of his old aged grandparents and number of other expenditures and therefore, he is not in a position to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 14,000 per month as maintenance, he added.

Rejecting the argument the Court said, for the purpose of considering and deciding the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C, a liability is to be fastened upon the husband which is not only a statutory liability under an enactment but also a social, economic and moral responsibility of the husband to maintain his wife and his minor children.

Justice Puri explained that the mere fact that the petitioner also has other expenditures to make is not significant and is irrelevant and the liability is fixed as per the law and therefore, such an argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is unsustainable.

The judge also refused to consider setting aside the maintenance order on the ground that the wife has an ability to work and earn because she is an educated lady having qualification of B.A. PGDCA.

In the light of the above, the Court dismissed the plea with the cost of Rs. 10,000 and directed to deposit the aforesaid costs before the Family Court, Ludhiana within a period of 3 months from the order.

Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for Mr. R.K. Malik, Advocate

Title: AXXXXX v. XXXXXX