The Kerala High Court recently observed that a woman is not barred from claiming maintenance from her husband merely because she is capable of earning some income or is engaged in occasional work that may not fetch her sufficient income.

Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that in the case of Shailja and Another v. Khobbanna (2018), the Supreme Court has differentiated between a wife who is actually earning enough income to support herself and a woman who is 'capable' but may not be earning such income.

Further, citing the Supreme Court ruling in Rajnesh v Neha and Another (2021), the High Court reiterated that even if the wife was earning, the same would not bar her from claiming maintenance.

The High Court also recounted that in Sunita Kachwaha and Others v. Anil Kachwaha (2014), the top court has indicated that even a woman who is actually earning may seek maintenance from her husband if she is not earning enough income to sustain herself.

The High Court went on to observe,

"The law is well settled that even if a wife has the capability to earn or is earning something, it does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance from her husband (Jayaprakash E.P. v. Sheney P. [2025 (1) KLT 815])."

The Court made the observation while dealing with a woman's plea for maintenance from her estranged husband. She knew tailoring, but claimed not to have steady work or sufficient income to support herself and her children.

She alleged that her husband had been cruel to her and that they had been living separately because of such marital cruelty. She further argued that her husband, also a tailor, earned enough to pay them maintenance. She sought the payment of ₹15,000 per month as maintenance from her husband for herself, and ₹10,000 each as maintenance for each of their two children.

A family court eventually ordered the husband to pay a monthly maintenance of ₹6,000 each for his two minor children. However, it refused to order the husband to pay any maintenance to his wife. The family court reasoned that the wife was capable of earning and supporting herself financially.

Aggrieved, the wife moved the High Court seeking maintenance for herself. She also sought an enhancement of the maintenance payable by her husband for their children.

The High Court stressed that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now replaced by Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), which deals with maintenance for wives, children and elders, should be interpreted liberally.

It held that the family court had erred in concluding that the wife, in this case, was not entitled to maintenance as she was capable of working and earning income for herself.

The Court found that the husband had failed to produce any admissible evidence to prove that his wife had a steady income or worked as a tailor.

It added that the wife's admission that she occasionally worked at her brother's shop was not enough to disentitle her from seeking maintenance from her husband.

"The wife’s temporary job, even if it provides some income, would not disentitle her to claim maintenance from her husband if she asserts that the said income is insufficient for her maintenance. For these reasons, the finding in the impugned order that the wife is not entitled to claim maintenance from the husband cannot be sustained. The Family Court erred in not awarding maintenance to the wife, who does not have any permanent source of income," the Court held.

The Court also noted that the wife's testimony that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband was not challenged by him during the trial.

Therefore, it found that there were sufficient reasons to justify her decision to live separately from him and seek maintenance.

The Court went on to order the husband to pay ₹8,000 per month as maintenance to the wife.

However, it refused to enhance the maintenance payable by him to the children.

The husband was represented by advocate R Surendran.

Advocates KC Santhosh Kumar and KK Chandralekha appeared for the wife and children.

[Read Order]