The Kerala High Court recently observed that a woman who is highly qualified but unemployed cannot be denied maintenance from her husband merely on the ground that she has the potential to work and earn income.

Justice Kauser Edappagath held that such a woman is entitled to maintenance until she secures the means to financially support herself.

The High Court made the observation while upholding a family court order that had directed a man to pay monthly maintenance to his wife and minor daughter.

Justice Edappagath emphasised that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - dealing with maintenance of wives, children and parents - is a social justice provision meant to protect the destitute wives and dependent children or parents.

Under this provision, a husband who has sufficient means is legally liable to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself, the Court noted. This means that even if a woman had degrees or professional skills, unless she was earning enough to live with dignity, she would be considered as being unable to maintain herself and entitled to maintenance.

"The expression ‘unable to maintain’ in Section 125 of Cr.P.C must be interpreted to mean the actual inability to sustain rather than mere potential earning capacity. The expression does not mean mere capacity or capability to earn. So much so, a highly qualified wife, if not working and earning, cannot be denied maintenance on the ground that she has the capacity to earn. In other words, a highly qualified jobless wife is entitled to maintenance until she secures sufficient means to support herself," the Court said.

The Court was dealing with a case that started with a maintenance petition being filed by the wife before a family court. She sought monthly maintenance from her husband for herself and her daughter (₹15,000 and ₹7,000, respectively).

The husband challenged this claim, stating that his wife was a well-qualified B Ed and MA graduate who could earn a livelihood. He further argued that she had left him and was staying separately without a valid reason.

However, the family court rejected these contentions and ordered him to pay a monthly maintenance of ₹6,000 and ₹4,500, respectively, to the wife and daughter.

Aggrieved, the husband filed a revision petition before the High Court questioning the correctness of the family court order.

The High Court found that no evidence was produced by the husband to substantiate his claim that the wife stayed separately without a reason.

It took note of the family court's finding that the husband's brother and sister-in-law had moved into the matrimonial home, causing a strain on his relationship with his wife. The Court concluded that the wife's decision to live separately was not without any reason.

"A separated life of a wife for a valid cause is recognised by law, and that will not stand in the way of raising a claim for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C (Section 144 of BNSS)," the Court added.

Relying on Supreme Court decisions, it also noted that the law required a realistic assessment of whether the wife had sufficient income to enjoy the same standard of life as she did at her husband's home.

The Court also declined to follow the recent Delhi High Court ruling in Megha Khetrapal v Rajat Kapoor, which suggested that an educated wife who remained unemployed could not claim maintenance. Justice Edappagath observed that such an interpretation would defeat the social welfare purpose of Section 125 CrPC.

Given that the husband was earning ₹66,900 per month and had sufficient means to maintain his wife and daughter, the Court upheld the family court's decision and dismissed the husband's petition.

The husband was represented by advocates Ajit G Anjarlekar, Govind Padmanaabhan, and GP Shinod.

The wife was represented by advocate RB Rajesh.

[Read Order]