Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Orissa High Court, striking a balance between a wife’s right to maintenance and her education and employment prospects when determining maintenance, ruled that the law does not support well-educated wives choosing to remain unemployed solely to impose a maintenance burden on their husbands.

The court, presided over by Justice G. Satapathy, modified a Family Court order and reduced the maintenance payable by the petitioner-husband from ₹8,000 to ₹5,000 per month, considering that the wife was well-educated and had previous work experience.

The court observed: “Law never appreciates those wives, who remain idle only to saddle the liability of paying maintenance on the husband by not working or not trying to work despite having proper and high qualification.”

The court made the observation while hearing a petition filed by the husband against the Family Court’s order which directed him to pay ₹8,000 per month as maintenance to his wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The Family Court had assessed the petitioner’s net salary as ₹32,541 per month, noting that he also had a dependent mother. Despite acknowledging the wife’s educational background and past work experience, the Family Court still granted her maintenance on the ground that she was unemployed. Dissatisfied, the husband sought revision before the High Court.

The petitioner argued that since the wife was educated and capable of earning, she should not be granted maintenance simply because she chose not to work. It was contended that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is meant for wives who are genuinely unable to sustain themselves, not those who voluntarily remain unemployed.

Highlighting the objective of Section 125 CrPC, the court stated, “The intention and objective of legislature in enacting Section 125 of CrPC is to provide succor to those wives, who are unable to maintain themselves and have no sufficient income for their sustenance. The social objective behind the provision for grant of maintenance, if considered on the admitted facts as discussed in this case, it would go to disclose the wife’s need and requirement to be balanced not only with the income and liability of the husband, but also has to be considered on the backdrop of the education and prospect of the wife to earn.”

In light of these considerations, the court reduced the maintenance from ₹8,000 to ₹5,000 per month.

 

Cause Title: Madan Kumar Satpathy v. Priyadarshini Pati [RPFAM No. 417 of 2023]

Appearance: For the Petitioner-Advocate A.C. Panda ; For Respondent- Advocate R.C. Ojha