Recently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court was confronted with a pressing question at the heart of matrimonial law: can a professionally qualified wife be denied maintenance merely because she has the capacity to earn, despite having no actual income? The case brought into sharp focus the lived reality of women who step away from their careers due to marital obligations, prompting the Court to closely examine the distinction between earning potential and financial independence, with significant implications for claims under Section 125 of the CrPC.
The controversy began when the husband challenged a Family Court order directing him to pay ₹40,000 per month as maintenance to his wife, arguing that she was a qualified engineer capable of earning and allegedly working as a freelancer. He claimed she was earning around ₹50,000 monthly and had sufficient financial resources, while he himself saved only a minimal portion of his income. On the other hand, the wife contended that she had discontinued her job due to marital pressures and was left without any independent source of income. The dispute further unfolded against allegations of cruelty, financial demands, and a breakdown of marital expectations shortly after marriage.
The Court rejected the husband’s line of defence, drawing a sharp distinction between theoretical earning capacity and actual income. The Court held, “There is difference between ‘may earn’ and ‘is earning’.” It further emphasised that where a wife has left employment due to marital compulsions, she remains entitled to maintenance until she secures a stable income. The Court also noted the husband’s failure to produce credible proof of his own income despite denying a substantial salary, and observed that the wife’s possession of Streedhan could not absolve him of his obligation. Finding the maintenance amount proportionate to the standard of living expected from a husband in a well-paid position, the Court concluded that there was no perversity in the Family Court’s order.
Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to seek modification upon a change in circumstances.
Case Title: Saurabh Malviya Vs. Apurva Malviya
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 3453 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gajendra Singh
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Ashutosh Surana
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Prasun Pandey
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
