Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a wife cannot be denied maintenance under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) merely because she is highly qualified or possesses vocational skills.

Setting aside a family court order rejecting a woman's application seeking maintenance from her husband, Justice Garima Prashad observed that it is "misplaced for a husband to rely solely on the qualifications of his wife to evade his legal obligation to maintain her".

The court said a wife's mere potential to earn is distinct from actual gainful employment.

It emphasised that this is a reality faced by many women who despite their education find it difficult to join the workforce after years of domestic duties and childcare responsibilities.

The court set aside an order of the additional principal judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr, who had rejected the wife's application moved under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance from her husband.

The family court had rejected the wife's plea for maintenance on the grounds that she had concealed her professional education from the court and had not approached the court with clean hands.

It was also of the view that the wife was living separately without any sufficient cause and that she had refused to return to the matrimonial home despite proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The family court had, however, directed that an amount of Rs 3,000 per month be paid to the minor son from the date of filing of the petition.

During the hearing in the high court, the wife's counsel argued that she had no source of income and that the second opposite party, husband, had failed to produce any proof that his wife had been working and was gainfully employed.

The husband contended that his wife is highly qualified and is currently employed as a private teacher, holds an ITI diploma in tailoring and she also earns income by providing tuition to children.

The high court noted that the wife might have left the matrimonial home due to the ill treatment and that there was also no specific finding regarding the wife's proof of gainful employment.

It further observed that the statutory right of the wife to get maintenance from her husband cannot be infringed by setting up a case that she had the capacity to earn.

The high court in its decision dated January 5 observed, "It is a matter of social reality that women devote themselves to domestic responsibilities and take care of children and are unable to be gainfully employed. It is, therefore, misplaced for a husband to rely solely on the qualification of his wife to evade his legal obligation to maintain her." It also acknowledged an unemployed wife's situation who has to single-handedly care for her young child, saying it reflects the "reality faced by many women, who, despite their education, find it difficult to join the workforce after years of domestic duties".

Furthermore, the high court termed Rs 3,000 awarded to the adolescent son as a "meagre" amount and noted that the boy requires support to study and grow in a healthy environment.

The high court sent the matter back to the Family Court, Bulandshahr, for passing a fresh, reasoned order within one month. 

(This report has been published as part of the auto-generated syndicate wire feed. Apart from the headline, no editing has been done in the copy by ABP Live.)