The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court recently delivered a significant ruling, emphasizing that a woman’s advanced educational qualifications cannot automatically disqualify her from receiving maintenance if she is unemployed. The court acknowledged the current economic climate, marked by high unemployment rates, in its decision.
Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke presided over a criminal revision petition filed by a Central Railways loco pilot. He contested a family court order granting maintenance to his estranged wife, a postgraduate, and their minor daughter. The husband argued that his wife’s educational background, including her MA and BA degrees, rendered her capable of self-support, thus negating her need for maintenance.
However, the court refuted this claim, pointing out the harsh reality that even individuals with advanced degrees often struggle to find employment today. Justice Joshi stated, “Judicial note can be taken that in the present era, there is unemployment. Even the person who obtained a higher degree, specialization, they are also unable to get the jobs. Therefore, merely because she is an educated lady is not sufficient to hold that she is an able-bodied person and able to maintain herself as she has completed her post-graduation.”
In examining the husband’s financial situation, the court found his monthly income had increased to approximately ₹85,000, while the wife remained unemployed. Consequently, the court ordered the husband to provide ₹10,000 per month for his wife and ₹5,000 for their daughter from October 2017 to December 2020. These amounts were subsequently increased to ₹12,000 and ₹7,000 per month, respectively, from January 2021 onwards, supplementing a prior award of ₹15,000.
The court highlighted the social justice aspect of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which aims to prevent destitution by ensuring that those who can provide support do so for those unable to support themselves. Justice Joshi clarified that “the phrase ‘unable to maintain herself’ would mean the means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her and would not take within itself the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive somehow.”
The ruling underlines the fundamental purpose of maintenance: to ensure basic necessities such as food, clothing, and shelter for a deserted wife, reflecting a man’s natural duty to support his immediate family when they cannot sustain themselves.
In the proceedings, Advocate Vishwadeep Mate represented the husband, while Advocate Jyoti Dharmadhikari appeared for the wife.
