Woman can't be compelled to go to work merely because she is educated: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on Friday emphasised on the importance of the choice of a woman to either work or stay at home even if she is qualified and educated to work.

Justice Bharati Dangre said that merely because a woman is a graduate does not mean that she has to work and cannot stay back at home.

"Our society has not yet accepted that the woman of the household should contribute (towards finances). It is a woman's choice to work. Just because she (one of the parties to the case) is a graduate does not mean she cannot sit at home," Justice Dangre said.

"Today I am a judge, tomorrow suppose I may sit at home. Will you say 'I am qualified to be a judge and shouldn't sit at home'," the judge asked.

The Court was hearing a revision application filed by the husband challenging an order of the family court in Pune, directing him to pay maintenance to his wife, who according to him was earning a steady income.

During the hearing of the plea, the husband's counsel Advocate Abhijit Sarwate submitted that the family court unfairly directed the husband to pay maintenance despite the wife having a job.

The judge was, however, not convinced and proceeded to remark on the choice of educated women to either work or stay at home.

The dispute in brief was that the husband and wife got married in 2010. In 2013, the wife along with their daughter began living separately.

In April 2013, she initiated proceedings under the Domestic Violence (DV) Act against the husband and his family. After a year, she filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. There were also proceedings initiated under Section 498A (cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code.

While the DV proceedings were pending, the wife filed for maintenance before a family court under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The application was allowed, and the judge directed the husband to pay ₹5,000 per month to the wife and ₹7,000 separately towards maintenance of the child.

This order was challenged by the husband in the present petition filed through Advocate Ajinkya Udane.

The plea stated that the husband did not have any resources or money left to fight the continuous proceedings being filed by his wife.

His primary contention was that the wife had falsely claimed she did not have a source of income, when in fact, she was a salaried employee.

Counsel for the wife sought for time to respond to the contentions of the petitioner with judgments and the Court, therefore, adjourned the hearing to next week.