A wife's qualifications alone do not bar maintenance when she is not earning.

Sunita and her minor daughter sought maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The Family Court rejected the wife’s claim, reasoning that she had not resumed cohabitation after a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and was qualified and capable of earning; it awarded the daughter ₹5,000 per month.

In revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, the wife challenged the rejection.

The husband had stated that he earned ₹65,000 per month, supported his parents, and paid a housing-loan EMI; the wife, who held M.A. and B.Ed. qualifications, stated that she was not employed and cared for their minor child.

Whether the wife’s failure to resume cohabitation after the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, and her educational qualifications, disentitled her to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Whether, having regard to the parties’ circumstances and the husband’s income, the Family Court’s refusal of maintenance to the wife should be set aside.

Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides a summary remedy intended to prevent destitution and vagrancy by requiring a person with sufficient means to maintain eligible dependants; the judgment also characterises it as a measure of social justice within Articles 15(3) and 39 of the Constitution.

The Court referred to Chathurbhuj v. Sita Bai for the preventive and remedial purpose of maintenance proceedings, and to Rajathi v. C. Ganesan, AIR 1999 SC 2374, for the principle that the husband bears the burden of showing that he lacks sufficient means or has not neglected or refused to maintain his wife.

The Court further applied the distinction between being capable of earning and actually earning: educational qualifications alone do not establish that a wife is earning.

The Court noted that the husband admitted earning ₹65,000 per month and that the wife was not shown to be employed or earning, notwithstanding her qualifications.

It also considered that she was caring for the minor child and was dependent on her parents.

Although the Family Court relied on her failure to resume cohabitation after the restitution decree, the High Court concluded that her capacity to earn did not, on these facts, establish actual earnings or justify denying maintenance.

Considering the husband’s income and the wife’s childcare responsibilities, it found an award of ₹8,000 per month to be just and reasonable.

The order rejecting the wife’s maintenance claim was set aside, while the Family Court’s award of ₹5,000 per month to the daughter was confirmed.

The wife was awarded maintenance of ₹8,000 per month from the date of her petition, for so long as she remained entitled to receive it in accordance with law.