.jpeg)
Orissa High Court: Educated Wife Cannot Remain Unemployed Just to Claim Maintenance
In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court has held that a well-educated wife cannot choose to remain unemployed solely to claim maintenance from her husband. Justice G. Satapathy, while modifying a lower court’s order, reduced the maintenance amount, emphasizing that Section 125 of the CrPC is meant for those genuinely unable to sustain themselves, not for those who voluntarily refrain from working despite having qualifications.
Case Background
The case involved a maintenance dispute where the Family Court had earlier directed the husband to pay 8,000 per month to his estranged wife. The husband challenged this order, arguing that his wife, a Science graduate with a Postgraduate Diploma in Journalism and Mass Communication and prior work experience in media, was capable of supporting herself but chose not to. The wife contended that she was currently unemployed and needed financial assistance.
Court’s Observations
Justice Satapathy made it clear that maintenance laws are meant to provide support to those in genuine need, not to encourage financial dependency. The court remarked:
"Law never appreciates wives who remain idle just to impose the burden of maintenance on the husband despite having proper and high qualifications."
Key points from the judgment:
The wife, having educational qualifications and work experience, had definite employment prospects.
While currently unemployed, she had the ability to earn and sustain herself.
Maintenance should not become a tool for undue financial dependence when the applicant is capable of earning.
Court’s Decision
Taking into account the husband's financial obligations, including the care of his dependent mother, the High Court reduced the maintenance amount from 8,000 to 5,000 per month. The husband was directed to:
Pay arrears in four bi-monthly installments, starting March 7, 2025.
Continue paying the reduced maintenance from the date of application.
Conclusion
This ruling reinforces the principle that Section 125 CrPC is a safeguard for those in genuine need, not a means to impose financial dependency when one is capable of earning. By considering both the wife’s ability to work and the husband’s responsibilities, the court struck a balance between financial support and personal responsibility.
