Section 125 CrPC | Wife's Education, Capacity To Earn Alone Cannot Be Ground To Refuse Maintenance: Allahabad High Court

A wife cannot be denied maintenance merely because she is educated or capable of earning, the Allahabad High Court recently held while setting aside a family corder that awarded Rs 15,000 monthly maintenance to a woman from only 2022 despite her application being pending since 2015.

Allowing a criminal revision filed by the woman, the bench of Justice Garima Prashad observed that “the mere fact that the wife is educated or possesses the capacity to earn does not, by itself, disentitle her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 CrPC".

Court said what must be examined is the wife’s actual present ability to maintain herself in a manner consistent with the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage. It further reiterated that unless a wife is shown to be gainfully employed and earning sufficient income, the husband cannot avoid his statutory obligation to maintain her.

Significantly, a division bench of the high court recently dismissed a wife’s appeal seeking maintenance from her husband, holding that a highly qualified professional capable of earning cannot claim support by choosing not to work. In that case, the wife’s income tax returns reflected that she had previously earned more than Rs. 31 lakh per annum.

In the present case, the dispute arose from proceedings initiated by the wife under Section 125 CrPC (corresponding to Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) seeking maintenance from her husband. The parties were married in Ahmedabad on August 31, 2014 according to Sikh rites and ceremonies. The wife alleged that shortly after marriage she was thrown out of the matrimonial home on September 25, 2014 over dowry demands and was thereafter forced to live with her parents in Agra.

According to her, the husband operated an overseas education consultancy and coaching business under the name G.E.C. International Study Centre and earned nearly Rs 5 crore annually while leading a luxurious lifestyle. She claimed she had no independent source of income and was dependent on her retired father.

The husband, however, denied the allegations and contended that the wife herself deserted him after residing with him for only about 20 days. He argued that she held an MBA degree and had worked with companies including Kotak Mahindra, E-Clerx and Quess Corporation Ltd., earning more than Rs 3 lakh annually in the past.

During proceedings, the high court noted that the husband never expressed willingness to resume cohabitation with the wife at any stage, including during cross-examination. This, the court said, supported the conclusion that the wife had sufficient reason to live separately.

Court also scrutinised the husband’s financial disclosures and found inconsistencies regarding his shareholding in the business concern. While he claimed before the court that he held only a 25% stake in the firm, his income tax returns for different assessment years reflected varying shares of 50% and 75%. The court noted that he failed to provide satisfactory explanations or complete financial records.

Justice Prashad further observed that the husband gave evasive replies regarding another coaching establishment allegedly linked to him and declined to disclose turnover details of the business despite claiming financial losses and debt liabilities.

The high court held that the family court’s decision to award maintenance only from March 14, 2022 was “manifestly erroneous” since the maintenance application had been filed on January 5, 2015 and remained pending for nearly a decade.

Holding that the amount awarded was not just or commensurate with the parties’ socio-economic status, court remanded the matter to the family court for fresh determination of maintenance in accordance with law. The family court has been directed to decide the matter preferably within six months. Pending reconsideration, the husband has been directed to continue paying Rs 15,000 per month and clear all outstanding arrears.

Case Title: Smt Komal Lakhani vs. State of U.P. and Another

Order Date: April 20, 2026

Bench: Justice Garima Prashad