Well-Qualified Wife Should Not Remain Idle Just To Live On Maintenance From Husband: MP HC
Summary: In a significant ruling, the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, led by Justice Prem Narayan Singh, held that a well-qualified wife should not remain idle and entirely reliant on maintenance from her husband. The court emphasized that Section 125 of the CrPC is not meant to create an “army of idle people” dependent on spousal support. The judgment involved a case where the wife, with a master’s degree and a diploma in shipping, was awarded Rs. 60,000 per month in maintenance by a family court. The High Court reduced this amount to Rs. 40,000, acknowledging the wife’s earning capacity. The court encouraged women to strive for financial independence rather than relying solely on maintenance, ruling that exorbitant maintenance should not be awarded when the spouse has the potential to earn. This decision sets a precedent for cases involving educated spouses with the capability to work.
While batting most vocally for well-qualified wife to strive hard to be financially independent instead of just banking entirely on husband alone for maintenance, the Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Smt S vs A in Criminal Revision No. 3028 of 2019 with Criminal Revision No. 3931 of 2022 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2024:MPHC-IND:26313 that was heard on 24.08.2024 and then was finally pronounced as recently as on September 10, 2024 has minced just no words to held in no uncertain terms that well-qualified women should not remain idle ever and be dependent entirely on the maintenance amount from her husband. Most strikingly, the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Shri Justice Prem Narayan Singh who authored this most sagacious judgment minced just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that Section 125 of CrPC has not been introduced to create an army of idle or inactive people waiting for the maintenance to be awarded from the income of the other spouse. To put it differently, this judgment definitely exhorts women to treat themselves as not inferior in any way when compared to men and train oneself to be financially independent instead of doing just nothing and banking entirely on husband for all expenses!
It merits mentioning that the Bench observed that the wife was well qualified with a Masters degree in commerce and a diploma certificate in shipping and trading and with an earning capacity. It must be disclosed here that the Bench was hearing the criminal revision petitions that was moved by a husband and wife against a family court’s order directing the husband to pay Rs 60,000 to her per month. The Indore Bench thus made it clear that exorbitant maintenance should not be awarded to her. In this backdrop, the Bench deemed it fit to reduce the maintenance amount from Rs 60,000 to Rs 40,000.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Shri Justice Prem Narayan Singh of Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Both the Criminal Revisions are arising out of the same order and hence both the revisions are being heard and decided with this common order analogously.”
As we see, the Bench then discloses aptly in para 2 that, “These criminal revisions have been preferred under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, r/w S. 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. by the Husband and Wife respectively being aggrieved by the order dated 15.05.2019 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in M.Cr.C No.295/2015 whereby learned Principal Judge allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the wife by directing the husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs.60,000/- to the wife, per month.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 that, “Brief facts of the case are that, the wife has filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Indore seeking maintenance from the husband. As per her application, she got married with her husband by Hindu rights and rituals on 27.11.2023. She stayed with her husband and her in-laws at Pune, Abu-Dhabi and Dubai, wherein she was performing her duty as an ideal wife and always taken care of her husband and his family members. It has been alleged in the application that the husband has not taken care of her and used to harass her physically and mentally. In the year 2006 wife got pregnant and at that time also the petitioner used to harass her and subjected her to perform heavy house hold work due to which she suffered a miscarriage. She was continuously subjected to torture due to which many a times she was compelled to stay at her maternal house. Husband has also refused to take her to Dubai so also he threatened her to kill if she comes to Dubai, Thereafter, she started residing in her maternal house. It is further alleged in the application that the husband is working as vice president in Citi Bank, Dubai and earning 1,60,000 Diram per annum i.e. 13,333/- Diram per month and in addition to that income he earns Rs.50,000/-, hence in order to live a life in accordance with standard of living of her husband, she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C seeking maintenance of Rs.60,000/- per month.”
It is definitely worth noting that the Bench notes in para 4 that, “The aforesaid facts were denied by the husband in his reply to the application by stating that the wife is living separately from the husband without any sufficient cause. She used to doubt about the character of her husband and used to create disputes with him. Wife is a well educated lady employed in a Bank at Dubai and used to earn AED 3500/- (Rs.75000/- in Indian Currency) per month. At Indore also she was earning Rs.50,000/- by running a coaching center and beauty parlour. The wife is unnecessarily threatening the husband to rope him in false cases, while leaving her matrimonial house. The husband has the responsibility of his parents who are aged about 80 years hence she is not entitled for any maintenance.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 5 that, “Learned trial Court, on due consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, allowed the application vide the impugned order and awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.60000/- per month to the wife from the date of the order. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment parties have preferred this revision petitions.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 10 that, “In this case, the husband has filed his salary ship as Ex.D/7 which shows the gross pay as 35, 364.17 Dirams from which after prepaid housing deductions from Citiclub the net pay is mentioned as 19,834.17 Dirams. On that basis learned Principle Judge of Family Court has articulated the income of husband as Rs.3,96,680/- per month i.e. approximately Rs.4.00 lakhs. Further learned trial Court has also considered that since the husband is residing in foreign country 50% of the aforesaid income would be expended on domestic expenses in foreign countries. It is well known fact that the persons who are residing in foreign countries are generally required to spend their 50% amount in the same country. On this aspect learned trial Court has assumed that actual income of husband will be Rs.2.00 to Rs.2.50 lakhs per month and thereafter the same was divided by 1/3rd and Rs.60,000/- was awarded as monthly maintenance to the wife. Now the question is whether 1/3rd amount should be given to the wife/petitioner in Cr.R. No.3028/2019.”
While citing the relevant case law, the Bench points out in para 11 that, “It is also revealed from the record that wife is a well educated lady and she has also earned 3500/- Dirams. She has masters degree in commerce and in para 31 of her cross examination she has admitted that when she was living in Dubai she has completed the course of Shipping and trade forwarding diploma forwarding course. Further in para -32 she has stated that thereafter she was earning 3500 AED as monthly income (i.e.) nearly about Rs.75,000/- per month, that means she has the ability to earn her livelihood. In this regard the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jabsir Kaur Sehgal vs. District Judge Dehradun and Ors. reported as AIR 1997 SC 3397 is condign to be quoted here:-
“The Court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and those; he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. Amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate.””
Quite significantly, the Bench while citing relevant and remarkable case laws hastens to add in para 12 stating that, “In this regard, the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhary Vs. Rita Dey Chowdhary Nee Nandy (AIR 2017 SC 2383), wife is entitled to get 25% of the income of the husband. Hon’ble High Court of M.P., endorsing the aforesaid citation in the case of Amit Pandey vs. Manisha Pandey reported as 2020 Law Suit (M.P) 1098, adumbrated as under:-
“The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhary Vs. Rita Dey Chowdhary Nee Nandy (AIR 2017 SC 2383), has held that 25% of the income of the husband would be just and proper and not more than that. So, apart from that when ex-parte order was passed in favour of the respondent/ wife, then learned trial Court should have awarded 25% of the net income of the petitioner/non-applicant as maintenance and not more than that. So, it is appropriate to reduce the awarded maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to Rs.7,000/- per month which would be paid by the petitioner/non-applicant to the respondent/wife. The decisions in Deb Narayan Halder Vs. Smt. Anushree Haldar (AIR 2003 SC 3174) and Chandrakalabai Vs. Bhagwan Singh (2002 Cr.L.J. 3970) are not at all applicable in the case of petitioner/non- applicant.””
Most significantly, most forthrightly and so also most remarkably, the Bench encapsulates in para 14 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating that, “In the upshot of the aforesaid views laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that a well qualified spouses should not be left idle or to remain idle basing on their maintenance amount received from their husband. Nevertheless, Section 125 of Cr.P.C has not been constituted to create an army of idle or inactive people waiting for maintenance to be awarded from the income of the other spouse. In the case at hand, the wife is well qualified, she has Masters degree in Commerce and also done Shipping and Trading Diploma Course, thus she has earning capacity and therefore the exorbitant maintenance should not be awarded to her. It can be assumed that she can easily earn a good income by indulging herself in any work or business. Neither a married woman is debarred from doing job, nor a married woman living separately and also obtaining maintenance from her husband is prevented to employ herself and to earn some income for her livelihood.”
As a corollary, the Bench then propounds in para 15 directing that, “In view of aforesaid analysis in entirety and the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, looking to the income of the husband so also his liabilities and the fact that wife is a well educated lady, she also has her own source of income, this Court is of the considered opinion that the maintenance amount of Rs.60,000/- per month is on the higher side and the same is required to be reduced to Rs.40,000/- per month.”
It would be worthwhile to note that the Bench then directs in para 16 holding that, “Accordingly, Cr.R. No.3028/2019 filed by wife- is hereby dismissed and Cr.R. No.3931/2019 filed by the husband- is partly allowed with the directions that the maintenance amount awarded in favour of wife- be reduced from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per month. Remaining part of the order of family Court shall remain intact.”
Furthermore, the Bench then directs in para 17 that, “Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for information and necessary action.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing in para 18 that, “With the aforesaid, both the revision petitions stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.”
In a nutshell, it must be said that the Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in this robust judgment has most sagaciously very rightly maintained that a well-qualified wife should not remain idle just to live on maintenance from her husband. It thus merits no reiteration that well-qualified wife all over the country must spare a food of thought for what Hon’ble Shri Justice Prem Narayan Singh has ruled so elegantly, eloquently and effectively in this leading case and realize the bottom-line of this most commendable judgment that has been laid bare as discussed hereinabove! The earlier they do it, the better it shall be for them in their long term interests and so also for their family which includes the husband! There can be just no denying or disputing it!
Author Bio
