Recently, the Punjab & Haryana High Court modified a Family Court’s order on maintenance, directing the husband to pay Rs. 15,000 per month to his wife. The Court observed that decisions in maintenance matters must reflect practical financial realities, rejecting the denial of maintenance based solely on the wife’s previous nominal employment.
The petitioner, a wife seeking interim maintenance, was denied maintenance by the Family Court on the grounds that she had previously held a nominal position as a director in her brother’s business. The Family Court awarded Rs. 8,000 per month only for the minor child but concluded that the petitioner’s prior employment indicated her capacity to maintain herself. The petitioner contended that her employment was titular, limited to the period before her marriage, and she was entirely dependent on her husband after marriage.
The Counsel for the petitioner argued that the wife’s past employment in her brother’s company was not a valid basis to deny maintenance. It was submitted that her role was nominal, and she left the job after marriage. The petitioner emphasized that she had no independent source of income and was unable to maintain herself post-marriage. Whereas, the counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner had prior employment and an earning capacity, and this she was not entitled to claim maintenance. It was argued that she could support herself independently relying on her past employment as evidence.
The court rejected the argument that the petitioner’s previous employment disqualified her from claiming maintenance. Referring to Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., the court emphasized, “What is crucial is her present inability to maintain herself, not her past employment or financial independence”. The Court underscored that judicial decisions must align with practical societal realities, observing, “Courts are mandated to adopt a pragmatic approach by focusing on the substantive financial realities rather than being influenced by the mere formal appearance of employment or income”.
Further, the Court noted that the wife’s nominal employment in her brother’s company before marriage could not justify the denial of maintenance. It further clarified, “The mere fact that a wife was previously employed cannot serve as a valid ground for denying her maintenance claim from her husband”. Acknowledging the husband’s monthly income of approximately Rs. 86,000, the Court stressed the importance of balancing the husband’s financial capacity with the wife’s reasonable needs. In modifying the Family Court’s order the High Court directed the husband to pay Rs. 15,000 per month as interim maintenance to the wife, effective from the date of filing the petition, until the final decision in the main case.
Picture Source :
