Read Time: 04 minutes

In a case related to maintenance, the Rajasthan High Court recently directed a man, who was a welder by profession, to provide maintenance to his wife who was earning through stitching clothes at domestic level.

The bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati observed that the husband was a welder, which is almost like a skilled workman, thus, it could not be presumed that he was not earning sufficiently to maintain his wife. 

"Even if the petitioner-wife has some income source, then also there are three family members whom the respondent No.2-husband is liable to maintain. In the given circumstances, it is a fit case for grant of maintenance to the petitioner-wife," Court held. 

The woman (wife/petitioner) moved a Criminal Revision Petition before the high court challenging the order passed by the Family Court. The woman had urged the court to quash the order of the lower court and to direct the husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000 to her. 

The woman, along with her two children, were living separately. Therefore, they had sought maintenance before the Family Court which was partly allowed and the children were granted maintenance to a sum of Rs.3000 per month each. 

The lower court had rejected the maintenance plea of the wife on the ground that she knew tailoring and was earning money by stitching clothes for the ladies at domestic level.

On the other hand, the husband had claimed that he is a welder and does not have any source of income to pay maintenance to all three i.e. his two children and his wife. 

The High Court opined that even if the petitioner-wife was stitching clothes domestically then also she was entitled to get the maintenance. Accordingly, Court allowed the revision petition and quashed the order passed by the Family Court to the extent of denial of maintenance to the petitioner-wife.

Court directed that the petitioner-wife shall also be paid the monthly maintenance to a sum of Rs.3000 from the date of filing of the initial application.

Case Title: Sarvjeet Kaur v. State of Rajasthan and Lakhveer Singh