Professionally qualified wives can't automatically be denied maintenance: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently ruled that a wife cannot be stopped from claiming maintenance just because she is professionally qualified..Justice Sumeet Goel opined that a husband making such an argument against a maintenance claim would have to prove that the wife had given up on a profession just for the sake of seeking maintenance. “The wife merely by virtue of being educationally qualified cannot be held disentitled to seek maintenance, until and unless it is proved that she being professionally qualified, having taken up a profession, has given up on such profession, just for the sake of seeking maintenance,” the Court said..Interestingly, another single-judge of the High Court had recently observed that the provision for maintenance under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) cannot be permitted to be misused by able-bodied wives who want to sit idle at home.However, Justice Goel appeared to take a different view while dealing with a similar argument raised by a husband that his wife, a professionally qualified woman, cannot be expected to sit idle and then seek maintenance..The Court called the husband's argument misconceived and observed that he had not claimed that the wife was working prior to filing the plea for grant of maintenance.It further noted that the family court had recorded that she was spending most of her time taking care of their child.“The husband has miserably failed to prove any mala fide on the part of the wife in filing the petition for a grant of maintenance by giving up on her own professional income intentionally and deliberately,” it added..In this case, the couple married in 2015 and had a child. Due to matrimonial differences, the wife moved out and in 2018 approached the family court for maintenance for herself and the minor son under Section 125 CrPC.The family court in November 2023 directed the husband to pay ₹10,000 per month to the wife and ₹5,000 per month to the son. He was also directed to continue paying rent for the accommodation of wife and minor child.The husband moved the High Court against the order; the wife also approached the Court separately for enhancement of compensation..After going through the record, the Court rejected the husband’s contention that his wife, on account of her own actions and by living separately without any valid cause, had disentitled herself from claiming any maintenance. In particular, it called out the husband's argument regarding his wife allegedly maintaining a continuous relationship with her male friends.“There is no evidence to substantiate the wild allegations levelled by the husband to assassinate the character of the wife. The reference made on behalf of the husband to the letter…to contend that the wife through said document while admitting her fault has apologized for her conduct. Learned Family Court duly taking note of the said document has correctly held that the said documents have no significance in the facts of the case, as the said letter was written on 10.04.2016. However, the parties thereafter, have lived together for a substantial period and the petition for grant of maintenance was filed on 11.12.2018,” it said..It also turned down the argument that the family court had not not spelled out any formula for arriving at the amount of maintenance. The maintenance amount has been assessed while taking into account all the circumstances of the case, it said. On this aspect, the Court also dismissed the wife's application for enhancement of maintenance.“The maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.5,000/- per month to the son is not the only amount, husband is paying. Over and above the said amount he is paying the rent for the accommodation of the wife and son. The said rent is stated to be Rs.10,000/- per month in the year 2019, which was stated to have increased to Rs.14,300/- per month in the year 2023, and must have increase further with 10 % increase of rent per year qua the tenanted premises,” it found.Accordingly, the Court upheld the family court order and rejected petitions of both the husband and wife..Advocate P Norula and Bhupinder Singh represented the petitioner-husband.Advocate Vivek Singla and Urvashi represented the wife and minor child.