Qualification Alone Not Enough: Madhya Pradesh High Court Backs Wife’s Maintenance Claim

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that a wife’s mere educational qualification or theoretical ability to earn cannot be used to deny her maintenance, holding that there is a clear distinction between a woman who “may earn” and one who “is actually earning.”

In doing so, the Court dismissed a husband’s criminal revision petition challenging a Family Court order that directed him to pay ₹40,000 per month as maintenance to his estranged wife.

The order was passed by Justice Gajendra Singh in a revision filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, assailing the Mandsaur Family Court’s decision granting maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the findings of the Family Court, observing that the award was proportionate to the husband’s financial capacity and the standard of living expected in the marriage.

The couple, married in 2018 under the Special Marriage Act, lived together until August 2022. The wife subsequently approached the Family Court seeking ₹50,000 per month as maintenance, alleging cruelty and dowry-related harassment. She claimed that her husband, who had previously worked in the United Kingdom and was later employed as an Assistant Manager in a multinational company, had multiple income sources, including salary, agricultural land, rental income, and interest earnings.

The husband, however, denied these allegations and contended that his wife was a qualified engineer capable of earning independently. He argued that she was already earning through employment and freelance work, and that she had sufficient funds in her account. He further claimed that the Family Court ignored material contradictions and evidence, including audio and video recordings, while awarding maintenance.

Rejecting these submissions, the High Court underscored that there was no concrete evidence to establish that the wife was actually earning at the relevant time. The Court noted that while the husband asserted that the wife was capable of earning, such capability alone cannot disentitle her from maintenance. In a significant observation, the Court stated, “There is difference between ‘may earn’ and ‘is earning’,” clarifying that the law requires proof of actual income, not mere potential.

The Court also took into account the circumstances under which the wife had discontinued her job, observing that marital obligations and compulsions often require women to step away from their professional careers. In such situations, the responsibility to provide financial support continues to rest with the husband, especially when he is in a well-paying position. The Court emphasized that the breakdown of a marriage within a short period, particularly when accompanied by expectations of a certain standard of life, cannot be overlooked while determining maintenance.

Importantly, the Court rejected the husband’s argument that the wife’s streedhan or past financial transactions could negate her claim. It reiterated that streedhan remains the absolute property of a woman and cannot be treated as a substitute for maintenance.

On the question of the husband’s income, the Court noted that while he denied earning ₹18 lakh annually, he failed to produce documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. At the same time, he admitted ownership of certain assets, including lodges, and acknowledged his employment in a multinational company. These factors, the Court held, justified the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court.

Dismissing the revision petition, the Court held that the Family Court’s findings were neither perverse nor legally unsustainable. However, it granted liberty to the husband to seek modification of the maintenance order under Section 145 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in case of any change in circumstances, such as the wife securing gainful employment.

Case Title: Saurabh Malviya v. Apurva Malviya

Date of Order: March 23, 2026

Bench: Justice Gajendra Singh