LI Network
Published on: October 10, 2023 at 00:13 IST
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently emphasized that a wife’s possession of a higher education degree cannot serve as a basis to deny her maintenance. Justice Prem Narayan Singh upheld a Family Court’s order awarding a wife Rs. 10,000 per month in maintenance.
The Court’s order underscored the socialistic intent behind Section 125 of the CrPC, which aims to improve the status of women in need within society. It recognized that the fundamental purpose of this section is to alleviate the suffering of a woman who has left her matrimonial home.
In determining the amount of maintenance, the Court explained that a judge must consider what is necessary for the wife to maintain a standard of living that aligns with the family’s status, neither luxurious nor impoverished.
This matter revolved around a Criminal Revision petition filed by the husband, Mohammed Nadeem, under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984. He challenged the Family Court’s order directing him to pay his wife Rs. 10,000 per month in maintenance.
In his revision plea, the husband argued that his wife had lived with him for only 18 months, so he should not be liable for such a significant amount. He also pointed out that his wife holds an MBA degree and currently earns Rs. 28,000 per month, while his income is only Rs. 20,912.
In support of his argument, he cited a Delhi High Court judgment that held a highly qualified wife who earns after marriage, without disclosing her true income, is not entitled to maintenance from her husband.
The High Court rejected these arguments. It emphasized that a wife’s higher education does not necessarily imply that she can support herself. Furthermore, it found the husband’s allegations about her residing voluntarily with her parents to be unfounded.
Regarding the maintenance amount, the Court referred to a Supreme Court judgment that deemed 25% of the husband’s income as just and proper for maintenance. Considering the wife’s previous employment and her current unemployment, along with the husband’s salary certificate indicating a higher income, the Court found no irregularities or improprieties in the trial Court’s order and therefore declined to interfere.
Case Title: MN vs. T