The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, recently emphasized that well-qualified women should not remain dependent solely on maintenance from their husbands.
The court observed that a qualified spouse is not barred from working or earning independently, even if they receive maintenance.
Justice Prem Narayan Singh, delivering the judgment, stated that Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) was not intended to create an “army of idle” individuals relying entirely on maintenance from their spouse.
He stressed that the purpose of maintenance is not to encourage inactivity or financial dependence.
Also Read: Supreme Court Bans Black-and-White Photos in Pleadings Without Prior Approval
Case Details
The case involved a married couple who had both filed criminal revision petitions challenging a family court’s order that directed the husband to pay ₹60,000 per month in maintenance to his wife.
The wife had filed a petition under Section 125 of the CrPC, alleging harassment by her husband, who was working in a senior banking position in Dubai. She argued that the amount was insufficient given her needs.
The husband, however, contended that his wife had no valid reason to live separately and often initiated conflicts.
He also claimed that she was financially independent, having previously worked in a Dubai bank and currently running a coaching center and beauty parlour there.
The husband, who lost his job allegedly due to a complaint filed by the wife, also sought a reduction in the maintenance amount.
Also Read: Rajasthan HC Orders 180 Days Maternity Leave for Women in Unorganized Sectors
Court’s Observations
The Court expressed doubts about the husband’s claim that he was unemployed in Dubai, stating that it did not inspire confidence.
However, the Court acknowledged that the wife was well-educated, holding a Master’s degree in commerce and a diploma in shipping and trading, and possessed significant earning potential.
Given these circumstances, the Court ruled that the maintenance amount should not be excessive.
It reduced the family court’s order from ₹60,000 to ₹40,000 per month, highlighting that the wife could support herself through gainful employment.
Justice Prem Narayan Singh concluded, “It can be assumed that she can easily earn a good income by indulging herself in any work or business.”
Also Read: Live-In Couples Entitled to Protection Even if One Partner is Married: Punjab & Haryana HC
Bench and Parties
- Judge: Justice Prem Narayan Singh
- Husband’s Advocate: Rajat Raghuwanshi
- Wife’s Advocate: Syed Asif Ali Warsi