In the absence of any evidence of their income or their earning prospects, it would be unfair to say that all educated wives are a “breeding class of idle women” seeking to live off their husbands, the Orissa High Court recently observed.

Justice G Satapathy was dealing with a husband’s plea challenging a family court order for grant of ₹10,000 maintenance to his wife (a lawyer) and their daughter, who is over 18 years old. 

“It cannot have any universal application in all the cases that wife having high qualification is intentionally avoiding to work only to harass the husband with [an] intention to saddle the liability to pay maintenance to her, unless there is material evidence to that effect, inasmuch as in absence of any evidence of income and/or prospect to earn, it would be unfair to say that the wives are breeding a class of idle women to burden their husband,” the Court said.

It was the husband’s argument that his wife is well qualified and earns more than him. He also said that the wife voluntarily left him and was thus, not entitled to any maintenance.

However, the wife (respondent) argued that she is an advocate with not much of income and has to maintain her daughter who is a law student. She also alleged that her husband had married another woman.  

The Court said since the allegation of second marriage has not been disputed, the first wife (respondent) has a valid excuse in law to live separately from him. It also noted that the husband has filed a plea for divorce and thus, cannot get any benefit of the desertion plea.

On the argument that the father was not liable to maintain the major daughter, the Court said though Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) does not have any express provision for maintenance to a major unmarried daughter, she is entitled to maintenance under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.

“In Classical Uncodified Hindu Law, a Hindu male was always held morally and legally liable to maintain his aged parents, a virtuous wife and infant child. Hindu Law always recognized the liability of father to maintain an unmarried daughter,” the Court said.

The Court also observed that the husband had failed to establish that the wife was having a steady income.

“No document or evidence has been produced by the revision-petitioner to show that OP No.1 had appeared in how many cases and contested the same for her clients. It may so happen that a person may be enrolled as an advocate, but he or she may not have engagement for days, months and years together and in absence of any evidence with regard to engagement of the OPNo.1 as a counsel for different parties, it can be considered that she is not having sufficient means to maintain herself and her daughter in present day market cost,” it said. 

Therefore, the Court refused to interfere with the family court order.

Advocate BPB Bahali represented the husband.

Advocate A Pradhan represented the wife. 

[Read Order]