Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a petition filed by husband challenging the Family Court’s order awarding Rs. 40,000/- per month as maintenance to wife (Rs. 25,000/-) and daughter (Rs. 15,000/-), a single-judge bench of Prem Narayan Singh, J., partly allowed the petition and reduced the maintenance for the wife from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month considering her qualifications and potential earning capacity, while the maintenance for the daughter remained unchanged.
“A husband cannot renounce his wife, who is not an employed woman.”
The petitioner argued that his wife can maintain herself and claimed that she worked as a model, actress, and currently runs a dance class. Additionally, he stated that she holds an M.Com. degree. It was asserted that the maintenance was causing him financial hardship, as he is employed at a private bank and his family members are dependent on him.
However, the respondent denied earning any income and alleged that the petitioner harassed her for not giving birth to a son, which caused her to leave the matrimonial home. It was contended that the petitioner failed to provide any evidence of her current employment or income and newspaper clippings produced by him were from decades ago and were deemed inadmissible. It was contended that the petitioner earns Rs. 1,26,684/- per month as a senior manager and lives in a comfortable economic situation, owning multiple properties and vehicles.
The Court noted that the petitioner’s claims regarding the respondent’s income are not substantiated with evidence and the newspaper clippings were outdated and not reliable evidence. Despite the respondent’s qualifications, the Court asserted that a well-qualified woman is not automatically disqualified from receiving maintenance unless she is proven to be financially independent. The Court referenced Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715, which held that a woman’s education alone does not preclude her from receiving maintenance.
“…only on the basis of M.Com. and Arts Degree the wife cannot be eschewed from getting maintenance from her husband. A husband cannot renounce his wife, who is not an employed woman. Nevertheless, an educated lady can earn her own livelihood, even though, she requisites financial support from her husband to some extent.”
The Court referred to Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, where the Supreme Court held that “the maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meager that it drives the wife to penury.”
The Court opined that the Family Court did not commit any error while considering the socio-economic standard of wife as per the standard of her husband. The Court, however, opined that “Section 125 of Cr.P.C has not been constituted to create an army of idle or inactive people waiting for maintenance to be awarded from the income of the other spouse.”
The Court held that the wife is entitled to maintenance, but considering her qualifications and her ability to earn a living, the maintenance amount of ₹25,000/- appeared excessive. Therefore, the Court reduced her maintenance to ₹20,000 per month. The Court held that the maintenance awarded to the daughter remained unchanged at Rs. 15,000/- per month until she reaches the age of majority.
[Amit v. Namita, 2024 SCC OnLine MP 6447, Decided on 15-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Ms. Sudha Shrivastava, Counsel for the Petitioner
Shri Arpit Singh, Counsel for the Respondent