The Madhya Pradesh High Court emphasized that the maintenance provisions under Section 125 of the CrPC are not intended to create a “dependent class” of individuals relying on spousal financial support. In this case, the petitioner argued that his wife, who holds an M.Com. degree, is capable of self-sufficiency, as she has previously worked in the film industry and is currently operating a dance class.
A Bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh said, “Nevertheless, Section 125 of Cr.P.C has not been constituted to create an army of idle or inactive people waiting for maintenance to be awarded from the income of the other spouse. It is nowhere manifested that able and well qualified lady has to be always dependent upon her spouse for her maintenance.”
The Court acknowledged that while educational qualifications alone do not bar a wife from receiving maintenance, a spouse’s ability to secure employment should also be taken into account. The Court noted, “It is also established as admitted fact that she is also well qualified lady. As per evidence available on record, it can be assumed that respondent No. 1 /wife can earn some income for her livelihood even after being supported from her husband.”
The Court noted that while the respondent had the potential to earn based on her qualifications and past employment, it was essential to assess her current employment status. Consequently, the Court found the original maintenance sum of ₹25,000 per month to be excessive and reduced it to ₹20,000 per month, considering her ability to earn some income. The Court also upheld a separate maintenance award of ₹15,000 per month for the couple’s daughter until she reaches adulthood. The husband, who submitted a revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, contended that the maintenance order placed a significant financial burden on him, as he was also responsible for supporting his father and brother.
The Court observed that the petitioner, a senior manager at HDFC Bank, had the financial means to support his family.
During cross-examination, he acknowledged owning multiple assets, including a home in Mumbai and a substantial fixed deposit.
