Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court has ruled that a wife’s temporary employment and income do not disqualify her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if her earnings are insufficient to maintain the standard of living she previously enjoyed with her husband.

The court, presided over by Justice Kauser Edappagath, set aside the Family Court’s order, which had denied maintenance to the wife, and remitted the matter for determining the quantum of maintenance. “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,” the court noted.

The wife had filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance from her husband. She contended that, despite securing temporary contractual employment at Matsyafed, her earnings were insufficient to sustain herself and her elder daughter. She was earning ₹21,175 per month as a Data Entry Operator, residing in a rented house, and bearing the expenses of her daughter.

The husband, a Captain in the Merchant Navy, contested the claim, arguing that he was employed on a contractual basis, working only three to four months a year with earnings of ₹5,00,000 to ₹6,00,000 per contract. It was further claimed to be currently unemployed and suffering from ailments. However, evidence on record showed that he was receiving a pension of ₹27,000 per month from an LIC investment.

The Family Court had earlier rejected the wife's claim for maintenance, holding that she had voluntarily left the matrimonial home and was capable of earning. It also denied maintenance to the couple’s elder daughter on the ground that she had attained majority before the filing of the petition.

Highlighting that Section 125 CrPC is a welfare provision, the court observed: “The object of the provision being one to achieve social justice for the marginalized members of society – destitute wives, hapless children, and parents, it is to be construed liberally for the welfare and benefit of the wife, children and parents. True, maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C (Section 144 of BNSS) is provided to the wife who is unable to maintain herself. However, “unable to maintain herself” in Section 125 of Cr.P.C (Section 144 of BNSS) does not mean that the wife must be in a state of penury.”

Relying on Supreme Court precedents in Rajnesh v. Neha, Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, and Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, the court reiterated that even if a wife is earning, she is entitled to maintenance if her income is inadequate. “The wife held a job that was not permanent in nature. Her engagement was purely temporary, and the income she gets from the employment is a meagre one, which is hardly sufficient to supplement the day-to-day expenditures of herself and her daughter,” the court remarked.

Considering the claim made by the husband that the wife left her matrimonial home without a cause, the court found that the wife was forced to leave the matrimonial home due to cruelty at the hands of her husband. The same was supported by a pending criminal case under Sections 498, 323, 324, and 506 Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the husband.

The court set aside the Family Court’s decision, stating that “The Family Court erred in not awarding maintenance to the wife who does not have any permanent source of income.”

Regarding the elder daughter’s maintenance, the court upheld the Family Court’s decision, stating that “The finding of the Family Court that the elder daughter is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C…warrants no interference.” However, the court allowed the daughter to pursue maintenance under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA), which provides for a father’s duty to maintain an unmarried daughter until marriage.

The court further directed the Family Court to determine the quantum of maintenance for the wife within three months. The parties were directed to appear before the Family Court on February 18, 2025.

 

Cause Title: Jayaprakash EP v Sheney & Another [RPFC NO. 501 OF 2023]

Appearance: Advocate Jayaprakash EP (Party-In-Person); Advocates Jacob P Alex, Joseph P Alex, Manu Sankar P and Amal Amir Ali appeared for the wife and daughter.