The law is well settled that even if a wife has the capability to earn or is earning something, it does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance, the Court said.
The Kerala High Court recently said that a woman cannot be refused maintenance from her husband just because she has the ability to earn or does some occasional work that does not give her enough income to live on.
Justice Kauser Edappagath pointed out that in the 2018 case Shailja and Another v. Khobbanna, the Supreme Court made it clear that there is a difference between a wife who actually earns enough to support herself and a woman who is only “capable” of earning but does not earn sufficient income.
Further, referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another (2021), the High Court reiterated that a wife’s earning does not prevent her from seeking maintenance.
The Court also noted that in Sunita Kachwaha and Others v. Anil Kachwaha (2014), the Supreme Court made it clear that even a woman who is earning can claim maintenance if her income is not sufficient to support her basic needs.
The High Court then observed that,
“The law is well settled that even if a wife has the capability to earn or is earning something, it does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance from her husband (Jayaprakash E.P. v. Sheney P. [2025 (1) KLT 815]).
The Court made these remarks while considering a woman’s request for maintenance from her estranged husband. Although she knew tailoring, she stated that she did not have regular work or enough income to take care of herself and her children.
She accused her husband of subjecting her to cruelty, leading to their separation. She also contended that her husband, who is also a tailor, earns sufficiently to provide them financial support. She therefore sought ₹15,000 per month as maintenance for herself and ₹10,000 per month each for their two children.
The family court eventually directed the husband to pay ₹6,000 per month for each of their two minor children, but declined to grant any maintenance to the wife. It held that since she was capable of earning, she could support herself.
Unhappy with this decision, the wife approached the High Court seeking maintenance for herself as well as an increase in the maintenance amount awarded to the children.
The High Court emphasised that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now replaced by Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), which provides for maintenance to wives, children and parents, should be interpreted in a broad and liberal manner.
It observed that the family court was wrong in denying maintenance to the wife simply because she was capable of working and earning.
The Court also noted that the husband had not produced any acceptable evidence to show that his wife actually had a regular income or was working as a tailor.
It further stated that the wife’s admission of doing occasional work at her brother’s shop was not sufficient to deny her the right to claim maintenance from her husband.
“The wife’s temporary job, even if it provides some income, would not disentitle her to claim maintenance from her husband if she asserts that the said income is insufficient for her maintenance. For these reasons, the finding in the impugned order that the wife is not entitled to claim maintenance from the husband cannot be sustained. The Family Court erred in not awarding maintenance to the wife, who does not have any permanent source of income,” the Court held.
The Court also observed that the wife’s statement that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband was never disputed by him during the trial.
Therefore, it held that she had valid grounds to live separately and claim maintenance.
The Court then directed the husband to pay ₹8,000 per month as maintenance to the wife.
However, it declined to increase the amount of maintenance granted to the children.
