In a sharp examination of how courts assess a woman’s right to financial support after marital breakdown, the Allahabad High Court stepped in to scrutinise a Family Court order that had denied maintenance to a wife solely on the assumption that her educational qualifications made her self-reliant. The case raised fundamental questions on whether “capacity to earn” can legally replace proof of actual income when a woman seeks maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.
The controversy began when the wife challenged a Family Court decision that refused her maintenance while granting only Rs.3,000 per month to her minor son. Married in 2006 and living separately for years amid allegations of cruelty and dowry demands, the wife argued that she was unemployed, financially dependent on her parents, and solely responsible for raising her adolescent son. The husband countered by claiming she was highly educated, allegedly working as a teacher, and earning through tailoring and tuition.
The Family Court accepted this line of reasoning, holding that she had concealed her qualifications and was living separately without sufficient cause, prompting her to move the High Court seeking enhancement and recognition of her right to maintenance.
The High Court found the Family Court’s approach legally flawed and socially insensitive. Citing binding Apex Court precedent, the Court made it clear that “neither the mere potential to earn nor the actual earning, howsoever meagre it may be, is sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance.” Rejecting the notion that educational degrees automatically translate into financial independence, the Court stressed that Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice meant to prevent destitution, not a tool to penalise women for being educated. The Bench also criticised the husband’s conduct, noting that he had even denied fatherhood of the minor child to avoid liability.
Holding that the impugned order was passed without proper appreciation of the wife’s financial incapacity, the Court set aside the Family Court’s decision and remanded the matter for fresh determination of maintenance for both the wife and the minor son within one month.
Case Title: Smt. Suman Verma and another vs. State of U.P. and another
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. - 5971 of 2024
Coram: Justice Garima Prashad
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Deepak Kumar Yadav,
Advocate for Respondent: G.A., Shashank Tripathi
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
