Can a Qualified Wife Claim Maintenance If She Can Earn? MP High Court Explains

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a wife who has a valid reason to live apart from her husband is not automatically entitled to maintenance if she is found capable of supporting herself. In the same order, the Court refused to increase the Rs 30,000 monthly maintenance granted to the couple’s minor son.

Justice Alok Awasthi dismissed a criminal revision filed by a mother and her young son, upholding a Family Court order that granted maintenance to the child but denied it to the mother.

The petitioner wife and her minor son, had challenged the 27 September 2025 order of the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore. Under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 125 of the CrPC), the Family Court had directed the husband to pay Rs 30,000 per month to the son from 4 July 2024. No maintenance was awarded to the wife.

The couple married on 19 November 2019, and their son was born on 18 July 2022. The petitioners had sought Rs 2,00,000 per month, alleging cruelty, dowry demands, harassment, forced ouster and neglect. The husband denied the allegations, said the wife is a qualified dentist capable of earning, and described himself as a postgraduate student with limited independent income.

After recording evidence, the Family Court found that the husband is a qualified dental surgeon running his own clinic, holds a PPF account, invests in mutual funds, and earns at least Rs 1,50,000 per month. It also accepted that the wife had sufficient cause to live separately, owing to a dowry-harassment FIR (No. 155/2024). However, it noted that she is herself a qualified BDS dentist and did not accept her plea that she could not work solely because the child is young.

Why the Wife’s Claim Did Not Succeed

The High Court first noted that its revisional jurisdiction under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act is limited. It does not re-appreciate evidence unless findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or suffer from patent illegality.

On the wife’s claim, the Court observed that the Family Court had proceeded on the settled distinction between capacity to earn and actual earnings, as explained by the Supreme Court in Shailja & Anr. v. Khobbanna. The wife herself had admitted her qualification, and the only reason given for not earning was the child’s young age.

“No perversity is demonstrated in the conclusion that the wife is not ‘unable to maintain herself’ within the meaning of Section 125 of Cr.P.C./Section 144 of BNSS,” the Court said.

Answering the central question of whether a valid reason for living apart is enough, the Court held: “The concurrent finding that she has sufficient cause to live separately does not, by itself, entitle her to maintenance when she is found capable of maintaining herself.”

On the child’s maintenance, the Court noted that the Family Court had assessed the father’s income at a minimum of Rs 1,50,000 per month based on his own admissions in cross-examination. Rs 30,000 per month for a child of about three years, it said, “is neither inadequate nor excessive” when tested against the status of the parties and the father’s overall means.

The Court added that “No material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that the quantum is so low as to warrant interference in revision.”

The petitioners had relied on Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy and Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena. The Court said these rulings lay down “salutary principles”, but they did not compel a different conclusion on the findings against the wife’s claim.

Finding “no perversity, illegality or material irregularity”, the High Court dismissed the revision and affirmed the Family Court’s order.

Advocate Arpit Singh appeared for the petitioners, while Advocate Sudhanshu Vyas represented the respondent husband.

Case Title: Rupal Dhir and Anr vs. Gaurav Dhir

Order Date: October 12, 2026

Bench: Justice Alok Awasthi

Tags: