Wife can’t be denied maintenance solely based on how qualified she is: Allahabad HC stays family court order

Hearing a petition filed by a woman challenging a family court order that denied maintenance from her husband, the Allahabad High Court set aside the trial court order. It rejected the husband’s argument that his wife was more qualified than he was, and had a vocational diploma to earn on her own.

The High Court, while asking the Bulandshahr family court for a fresh determination of maintenance, said it was “misplaced for a husband to rely solely on the qualification of his wife to evade his legal obligation to maintain her”.

The bench of Justice Garima Prashad observed, “It is a matter of social reality that women devote themselves to domestic responsibilities and take care of children, and are unable to be gainfully employed. It is, therefore, misplaced for a husband to rely solely on the qualification of his wife to evade his legal obligation to maintain her. When a marital discord arises and parties get separated, then the very sacrifice is often portrayed as a devilish act intended to extract money from the husband. Such sweeping assumptions are not only unfair but deeply insensitive to the social and emotional realities that women face.”

The husband, in the family court, had argued that his wife is a postgraduate with an ITI Diploma in tailoring, while he is merely Class 10 pass.

The family court rejected the woman’s claim of maintenance on the ground that she had concealed her professional education from the court and had not approached the court with clean hands.

Taking note of the woman’s plea against the Bulandshahr family court, the High Court ordered, “The impugned order is set aside and remanded back to the learned Family Judge for fresh determination of maintenance, on the basis of material on record and in accordance with principles governing grant of maintenance, after taking note of the observations made in the present judgment.”

“The learned Family Judge shall pass a reasoned order afresh within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. All rights and contentions of the parties on merits are left open to be urged before the learned Family Court,” the judgment read.

The woman, in her petition in the High Court, stated that she got married to the man on May 20, 2006, as per Hindu rituals. The husband is a Class-IV employee at a primary school in Bulandshahr district and earns approximately Rs 35,000/- per month. According to the woman, from the wedlock, a son was born who is around 15 years old and lives with her.

In 2015, the woman left her husband’s home along with her son due to physical and mental cruelty, including beatings and harassment, she alleged in the petition.

She had filed a petition for maintenance, which was disposed of by the Bulandshahr family court after the couple reached a compromise based on the man’s assurance that he would keep the wife properly. Accordingly, she had withdrawn the case and returned to the matrimonial home.

On January 9, 2020, the woman was allegedly beaten again and expelled from the matrimonial home along with her son on the demand of dowry. She again filed a petition in the family court seeking a monthly maintenance of Rs 15,000 for herself and Rs 10,000 for her son on April 19, 2021. In her petition, she had said that she was living at her parental home and was financially dependent on them.

The husband, through his counsel, submitted before the court that his wife is highly qualified. She had done MA before marriage, whereas he was a high school passout. According to the man, his wife is presently working as a teacher and has an ITI diploma in tailoring. She also earns by giving tuitions to children. It was submitted before the court that the wife was not entitled to any maintenance. He also declined to own the son, claiming he had no physical relationship with the wife since 2007. The family court had partly allowed the application and directed a monthly amount of Rs 3,000/- per month to be paid by the husband to his minor son from the date of filing of the petition.

In the judgment, the High Court stated that the family court held that though the husband had claimed that the child is not his son, he, however, had failed to produce any reliable evidence, and hence rejected the man’s plea.

The court observed, “Though the learned Family Court is right in recording that the Revisionist No.1/wife had concealed material facts regarding her entire education and qualification, it cannot be ignored that the Opposite Party No.2/husband has also made false statement on affidavit denying fatherhood of the minor child only to deny the payment of maintenance towards his wife and minor child. There is also no specific finding regarding proof of gainful employment of the Revisionist No.1/wife.”

The order further stated, “It is also evident that the maintenance amount awarded to the Revisionist No.2/minor son of Rs. 3,000/- per month is a meager amount considering that the boy is an adolescent needing support to study well and grow in a healthy environment. The revisionist wife is entitled to maintenance from the husband even if she has the capacity to work.”