Earning Wife: Entitled to Maintenance?

The Indian Jurisprudence accepts that in a society that is deeply mired in patriarchy, maintenance can be an essential instrument for social welfare. Although, Section 144 of the BNSS (earlier Section 125 of the CrPC) which provides for maintenance is a part of criminal law, these provisions are not penal in nature but rather are only intended for the enforcement of a duty. The Supreme Court of India has consistently emphasized that the object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and its resulting consequences. James Fitz James Stephen, the architect of the Code of Criminal Procedure, originally put forth this philosophy way back in 1882 which was premised on the assumption that the wives were entirely financially dependent on their husbands. This underlying notion has led to debates in modern times about whether an educated, employed woman still has the right to claim maintenance. The purport of this article is to examine a recent Delhi High Court Judgement in this regard and analyse the judicial trends in India related to grant of maintenance to earning women.

Foundational Principles from the Supreme Court

In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316, the Supreme Court held that maintenance cannot be denied merely because the wife is earning; it must also be shown that her income is sufficient for her sustenance. The Court emphasized that even if the wife has some earnings, she may still be entitled to maintenance. The Court observed as follows:

 “Under the law the burden is placed in the first place upon the wife to show that the means of her husband are sufficient. In the instant case there is no dispute that the appellant has the requisite means. But there is an inseparable condition which has also to be satisfied that the wife was unable to maintain herself. These two conditions are in addition to the requirement that the husband must have neglected or refused to maintain his wife. It has to be established that the wife was unable to maintain herself. The appellant has placed material to show that the respondent wife was earning some income. That is not sufficient to rule out application of Section 125 CrPC. It has to be established that with the amount she earned the respondent wife was able to maintain herself.”

The Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, held that an earning wife is not barred from claiming maintenance, as the court must assess whether her income is sufficient to maintain herself in accordance with the standard of living in the matrimonial home. The Court observed as follows:

“The courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. The courts have provided guidance on this issue in the following judgments:

 In Shailja v. Khobbanna, this Court held that merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The court has to determine whether the income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home.

In Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha the wife had a postgraduate degree, and was employed as a teacher in Jabalpur. The husband raised a contention that since the wife had sufficient income, she would not require financial assistance from the husband. The Supreme Court repelled this contention, and held that merely because the wife was earning some income, it could not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance.

The Bombay High Court in Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale, held that neither the mere potential to earn, nor the actual earning of the wife, howsoever meagre, is sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance.”

The Supreme Court in Rajnesh (Supra) established a comprehensive list of factors for the courts to consider before awarding a sum of maintenance. Among these factors was the standard of living the wife enjoyed in the matrimonial home.

The Standard of Living Principle in Practice: Shikha Badhani v. Hemant Badhani

In the case of Smt Shikha Badhani v. Shri Hemant Badhani, the Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by the wife, who is an Assistant Professor earning approximately Rs. 1,25,000/- per month, and had sought maintenance from her husband-respondent, who is a Senior Computer Scientist in the USA with an annual income exceeding Rs. 1 crore. The Family Court had denied her interim maintenance and awarded only Rs. 35,000/- per month for their minor daughter on the grounds that she is a highly qualified individual with the capacity to earn and maintain herself. The court contended that the object of maintenance is to prevent destitution and not to equalize incomes.

Overturing the Family Court’s decision the Delhi High Court, relying on the judgement Nidhi Sudan v. Manish Kumar Khanna, 2023, rendered by the same High Court, reasoned that the objective of maintenance is not merely to prevent destitution but to ensure the financially weaker spouse can maintain the same standard of living enjoyed during the marriage. The court observed as follows:

“Despite her employment, her income does not sufficiently meet the demands of sustaining the standard of living that both she and the minor child were accustomed to prior to the separation. It is therefore evident that while the appellant earns an income, it is not comparable to the scale and diversity of the respondent’s earnings. The learned Family Court erred in treating the wife’s income as sufficient without factoring in the qualitative difference between the economic statuses of the two parties. As settled by law, the financial self-sufficiency of the wife must be assessed not in absolute terms but relative to the standard of living maintained during the marriage. The objective of Section 24 of the HMA is to ensure that neither spouse suffers economic hardship or social disadvantage due to the breakdown of the marital relationship. Consequently, to ensure parity and fairness, the maintenance must be calibrated in a manner that allows both parties, especially the financially weaker spouse, to live with dignity and maintain a comparable lifestyle, particularly when the respondent’s income is almost tenfold that of the appellant.”

Finding the wife’s income insufficient to support herself and her child at the standard they were used to, and given the husband’s vast financial capacity, the High Court enhanced the total monthly maintenance from Rs. 35,000 (for the child only) to Rs. 1,50,000 for both the wife and child.

Corroborating Rulings from High Courts

In Neha Mathur & Anr. v. Dr. Arvind Kishore (S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 243/2022), the Rajasthan High Court held that a wife is entitled to maintenance from her husband even if she is earning. The Court clarified that the husband’s allegation of desertion cannot bar her claim to maintenance. Considering the husband’s monthly income of about ₹12,00,000 in contrast to the wife’s ₹85,000, the Court observed that he is financially capable of providing support. It further reasoned that allocating around 1/12th of his income would still leave sufficient funds for his living expenses in the U.S. Consequently, the Court enhanced the maintenance awarded by the lower court, fixing it at ₹75,000 per month for the wife and ₹25,000 per month for their son.

In Amit Kumar v. Navjot Dubey (CR No. 6198 of 2013), the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the District Court’s order granting interim maintenance to the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, despite her earning a higher salary than her husband. The Court emphasized that the wife, who was also responsible for raising their two children, is legally entitled to maintenance and should enjoy the same standard of living as she would have had if she were living in her matrimonial home. Highlighting the rising cost of living and educational expenses of the children, the Court dismissed the husband’s plea that the awarded maintenance was excessive and affirmed the lower court’s decision.

Conclusion

Though maintenance was originally intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution, today maintenance is not really a starvation prevention mechanism but is intended to keep the indigent spouse with reasonable comforts and if possible, in the same economic position as she/he was before the breakup with the financially active spouse. The law, as interpreted and applied by the Indian judiciary, is clear, a woman’s education and employment do not strip her of the right to claim maintenance. The Shikha Badhani case powerfully demonstrates that maintenance is not a handout for the helpless, but a right that ensures fairness, dignity, and economic equity for an educated and employed woman.

References

1. Journal of the Indian Law Institute, April-June 1985, Vol. 27, No. 2 (April-June 1985), pp. 291-317. Published by Indian Law Institute
2. https://www.lawfinderlive.com/