HC rules, Husband bound in Law to Maintain his Wife even if she is a Practicing Lawyer with earnings. [Read the Judgement]

03 Jan 2020

Categories: Latest News Marriage and Divorce News Case Analysis

The Delhi High Court, in one its recent judgements has made its point on the difference between 'capable of earning' and 'actual earning'.

During the hearing of one maintenance case, It has allowed the grant of interim maintenance to a wife under Section 125 CrPC, notwithstanding that she is an Advocate.

CASE BACKGROUND

The order was passed in a challenge to an order of the Family Court which had awarded monthly maintenance of ₹33,005/- in favor of the wife.

Aggrieved by the order, the Petitioner-husband presented his case before this Court.

He asserted in his submission that his wife wasn't entitled to maintenance as she was professionally qualified and was earning well to feed on herself.

She had completed her LLB and was enrolled as an Advocate in the year 2000 with Bar Council of Delhi.

The Respondent-wife while making her case contesting the revision petition stated in her submission that it was only prior to her marriage that she practiced briefly.

She further asserted that she left practicing her profession keeping into account the young age of her child and had no source of income.

She said she was thrown out of her matrimonial house in that circumstances and thereafter lived with her mother accompanied by her minor child.

COURT ANALYSIS

The Court after listening to the submission of both the parties noted that even though the petitioner-husband claimed that her respondent-wife was well off, he couldn't produce any document in support of the same.

Making the above a deciding and important fact, it refused to interfere in the order challenged before it.

The Court stated:

"The petitioner's aforementioned contention, in absence of any supporting document, remains a disputed question and needs to be tested in a trial. The Family Court has recorded in the impugned order that any amount paid as maintenance in favor of the respondent/wife and her minor child for the period in question would be liable to be adjusted. In view of the above discussions, I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Family Court."

To make its point clear, the Court placed reliance on Shalija & Anr. v. Khobbana, (2018) 12 SCC 199, in which the Supreme Court had observed that 'capable of earning' and 'actual earning' are two different requirements.

In the above judgement, the Bench clarified that merely because the wife is capable of earning was held not to be a sufficient reason to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court.

The judgement has been passed by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri on 06-12-2019:

Read Judgement Here: