The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently ruled that a wife cannot be denied maintenance solely based on her professional qualifications. Justice Sumeet Goel stated that if a husband wishes to contest a maintenance claim on these grounds, he must demonstrate that the wife intentionally gave up her profession with the purpose of seeking maintenance.
“The wife, merely by being educationally qualified, cannot be disqualified from seeking maintenance unless it is proven that, despite being professionally qualified, she abandoned her profession solely to claim maintenance,” the Court emphasized.
This stance contrasts with a recent observation by another judge of the High Court, who suggested that maintenance provisions under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) should not be misused by capable wives who choose to remain idle. However, Justice Goel rejected a similar argument from a husband, who claimed that his professionally qualified wife should not be permitted to seek maintenance if she could work.
The Court found the husband’s argument flawed, noting that he had not proven that his wife was employed before filing her maintenance claim. Additionally, it recognized that the family court had documented her primary role in caring for their child.
“The husband has failed to demonstrate any bad faith on the wife’s part in seeking maintenance by intentionally abandoning her professional income,” the Court added.
The case involved a couple who married in 2015 and had a child. Following matrimonial disputes, the wife moved out and sought maintenance for herself and their son in 2018 under Section 125 CrPC. In November 2023, the family court ordered the husband to pay ₹10,000 per month to the wife and ₹5,000 per month to the son, along with covering their rent.
The husband appealed this decision to the High Court, while the wife sought an increase in maintenance. After reviewing the case, the High Court rejected the husband’s claims, including allegations of the wife maintaining inappropriate relationships with male friends, which the Court found unsubstantiated.
“There is no evidence to support the husband’s unfounded allegations against the wife’s character. The family court rightly concluded that a letter referenced by the husband, dated April 10, 2016, in which the wife allegedly admitted fault, had no relevance since the couple continued to live together for a considerable time thereafter, and the maintenance petition was filed in December 2018,” the Court stated.
The Court also dismissed the husband’s claim that the family court failed to explain how the maintenance amount was determined, affirming that the sum was calculated based on the circumstances. It similarly denied the wife’s request for an increase in maintenance.
“The maintenance of ₹10,000 per month for the wife and ₹5,000 per month for the son is not the sole financial obligation on the husband. In addition, he is covering the rent for their accommodation, which was ₹10,000 per month in 2019, rising to ₹14,300 per month by 2023, with a 10% annual increase,” the Court observed.
Consequently, the High Court upheld the family court’s decision and dismissed both the husband’s and the wife’s petitions.
Advocate P. Norula and Bhupinder Singh represented the husband, while Advocates Vivek Singla and Urvashi appeared for the wife and minor child.
