Can wife with temporary job still claim maintenance? Kerala High Court answers

The Kerala High Court recently held that a wife's temporary employment and income from the same do not disqualify her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) [Jayaprakash EP v Sheney & anr]..Justice Kauser Edappagath cited precedents from the Supreme Court to re-affirm that even a capable or employed wife could claim maintenance if her income cannot sustain the lifestyle she previously enjoyed while she was staying with her husband."Thus, 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. The test is whether the wife is able to maintain herself more or less in the status in which her husband has maintained her. The wife is entitled to live the same standard of life as she lived along with the husband," the Court stated.Applying the same to the present case, the Court allowed the wife's plea for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC after noting that despite her temporary employment, the income from the same was insufficient for her maintenance and that of her dependent daughter..By way of background, the wife and her elder daughter had first moved a family court seeking monthly maintenance of ₹45,000 each from the husband/father, a Merchant Navy employee.They claimed that they had no income but the husband contested the same and said the wife was employed at Matsyafed and the daughter had attained majority.The family court denied their claims, citing the wife's ₹21,175 salary and the daughter's ineligibility due to her being a major, but directed the father to hand over certain insurance policy certificates. Aggrieved, both parties filed revision petitions before the High Court challenging the order of the family court..The wife's counsel argued that the husband, a former Merchant Navy captain, was earning ₹9 lakh per month and has an obligation to support them, because the wife's employment was contractual and not a permanent source of income. Regarding the elder daughter, it was contended that she is entitled to maintenance under Section 20(1) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA), 1956, until marriage.The husband, however, argued that his wife has a stable employment and that his financial burden include supporting their younger daughter who stays with him. He further claimed that he is no longer in service and currently relies only on a pension..The Court observed that a woman living separately with a dependent daughter in a rented house can claim maintenance, notwithstanding her temporary job, if she proves to the Court that she is facing financial insufficiency."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," the Court added.The Court then examined the financial conditions of the parties and noted that the husband, an experienced sailor, was capable of earning and had failed to substantiate claims of his inability to provide maintenance."The husband who is capable of earning could not evade his lawful duty of maintaining his wife merely by stating that he is not presently employed. An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning enough to support his family unless he can prove genuine inability with concrete evidence," the Court observed.On the maintenance claim of the daughter, the Court distinguished between Section 125 CrPC and Section 20(3) of HAMA.It noted that Section 125 CrPC applies independent of personal laws and does not impose a liability on a father to maintain an adult unmarried daughter unless she suffers from physical or mental disabilities.However, under Section 20(3) of HAMA, a father is obligated to maintain an unmarried daughter who cannot support herself..Since neither the wife nor the daughter had specifically claimed maintenance under HAMA, the Court held that the elder daughter was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC but was free to approach the family court under HAMA.The Court also upheld the family court’s order directing the husband to hand over the insurance policy certificates to the wife.Accordingly, the Court set aside the family court's order denying maintenance to the wife and remitted the case to the family court for reconsideration of the quantum of maintenance..Advocate Jayaprakash EP appeared in person.Advocates Jacob P Alex, Joseph P Alex, Manu Sankar P and Amal Amir Ali appeared for the wife and daughter..[Read Order]