n a significant ruling reinforcing the welfare mandate of maintenance laws, the Kerala High Court has held that an unemployed wife cannot be denied maintenance solely because she is highly qualified or has the potential to earn. The judgment was delivered by Justice Kauser Edappagath while upholding a family court order directing a man to pay monthly maintenance to his wife and minor daughter.
The Court underlined that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) — now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) — is a social justice provision enacted to protect destitute wives, children, and parents.
Quoting the law’s true spirit, Justice Edappagath emphasised:
“The expression ‘unable to maintain’ in Section 125 of Cr.P.C must be interpreted to mean the actual inability to sustain rather than mere potential earning capacity… A highly qualified wife, if not working and earning, cannot be denied maintenance on the ground that she has the capacity to earn.”
He further added:
“A highly qualified jobless wife is entitled to maintenance until she secures sufficient means to support herself.”
Case Background
The wife had approached the family court seeking monthly maintenance of ₹15,000 for herself and ₹7,000 for her minor daughter. The husband opposed the plea, arguing that she was an MA and B.Ed graduate capable of earning a livelihood. He also claimed she had left the matrimonial home without valid cause.
The family court rejected these contentions and awarded her ₹6,000 per month, and the daughter ₹4,500.
Unhappy with the order, the husband approached the High Court in revision.
Court’s Findings
The High Court noted that the husband failed to prove his allegation that the wife was living separately without justification. Instead, the records showed that the entry of the husband’s brother and sister-in-law into their matrimonial home strained the relationship, validating her decision to reside separately.
Justice Edappagath reiterated:
“A separated life of a wife for a valid cause is recognised by law, and that will not stand in the way of raising a claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.”
The Court also highlighted that maintenance must be assessed realistically, ensuring the wife is able to live with dignity and enjoy a standard of life comparable to what she had in her husband’s home.
Rejecting the Delhi High Court’s recent interpretation in Megha Khetrapal v Rajat Kapoor, which suggested that an educated but unemployed wife may not be entitled to maintenance, the Kerala High Court held that such a view would undermine the very purpose of Section 125 CrPC.
Final Decision
Given that the husband earned ₹66,900 per month and had adequate means to support his family, the Court upheld the maintenance awarded by the family court and dismissed the husband’s challenge.
The husband was represented by advocates Ajit G Anjarlekar, Govind Padmanaabhan, and GP Shinod. The wife was represented by advocate RB Rajesh.
