WIFE’S INCOME CANNOT BE THE SOLE GROUND FOR DENYING MAINTENANCE: GUJARAT HIGH COURT:

The Gujarat High Court has ruled that a wife’s own earnings cannot be the sole ground for denying her maintenance from her husband. The court made this observation while dismissing a criminal revision application filed by a husband challenging an order of the Family Court that enhanced the monthly maintenance payable to his wife.

Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar, in a single bench judgment, held that the wife’s earning capacity alone does not justify rejecting her claim for maintenance. The court emphasised that the husband has a legal and moral duty to provide financial support to his wife, and he cannot shirk this responsibility merely because she is earning some income. The bench further clarified that while deciding the final order in the matter, the trial court should adjust the maintenance amount appropriately and decide the case expeditiously on its own merits without being influenced by the present order.

The case originated from an application filed by the wife under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking enhancement of maintenance. She had requested an increase to Rs 30,000 per month, stating that her husband was earning around Rs 70,000 to 75,000 per month. She alleged that he had subjected her to mental and physical cruelty and had eventually driven her out of the matrimonial home. Earlier, under Section 125 CrPC, the Family Court had awarded her Rs 5,000 per month as maintenance.

In reply, the husband submitted that his gross salary was Rs 69,354 with a net take-home salary of Rs 54,499. He claimed various financial obligations including rent, loan installments, and maintenance provided to his parents. After hearing both sides, the Family Court partly allowed the wife’s application and enhanced the maintenance to Rs 15,000 per month from the date of the application. Aggrieved by this order, the husband approached the Gujarat High Court in revision, seeking to set aside the enhancement.

Justice Suthar observed that the wife was unable to maintain herself and had been neglected by her husband. The court noted that the mere fact that the wife is earning some income is not a valid ground to reject her claim for maintenance. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Sunita Kachwaha and Ors. vs. Anil Kachwaha (2014), the bench pointed out that even if the wife is qualified and earning, it cannot be a reason to deny her maintenance.

The court further stressed that it is the duty of the husband to maintain his legally wedded wife and provide her financial support. A husband cannot evade this social and legal responsibility. The wife is entitled to live with the same standard of living that she enjoyed while residing with her husband in the matrimonial home.

The bench explained that Section 127 CrPC allows for enhancement of maintenance upon a change in circumstances. In this case, there was a substantial increase in the husband’s salary. The court also noted that the husband did not have major additional liabilities, as his mother was a retired government employee receiving a pension, his father was self-sustaining, and his sister was employed.

Justice Suthar held that the Family Court had rightly exercised its jurisdiction by modifying the earlier order and enhancing the maintenance from Rs 5,000 to Rs 15,000 per month. The increase of Rs 10,000 was found to be reasonable and commensurate with the wife’s needs and the husband’s income.

The High Court ultimately dismissed the husband’s revision application, observing that he had failed to make out a case warranting interference under revisional jurisdiction. The judgment underscores the constitutional objective of achieving social justice, particularly for marginalised sections such as destitute wives, and aligns with the vision of equality and dignity enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India.