Capability to earn does not disentitle a wife from claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The applicant (husband) and respondent (wife) married in 2018.

The respondent alleged physical and mental harassment over dowry demands and was ultimately left at her parental home by the applicant’s family in November 2022.

Despite the respondent obtaining a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the applicant made no effort to resume the marriage.

The respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of ₹30,000 per month.

On 22.01.2026, the 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, partly allowed the application, directing the applicant to pay ₹7,000 per month.

The applicant challenged this order via criminal revision, arguing that he already pays ₹18,000 in parental maintenance, is pursuing a B.Tech degree, and that the respondent is a qualified B.Com graduate capable of earning.

Whether the maintenance amount of ₹7,000 per month awarded by the Family Court was excessive or illegal given the applicant’s existing financial liabilities and the respondent's educational qualifications.

Whether the respondent had sufficient and justifiable grounds to live separately and claim maintenance.

The Court applied Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which mandates that a person with sufficient means must maintain their spouse if they are unable to maintain themselves.

The court emphasized the legal and moral obligation of a husband to maintain his wife according to his financial capacity and income status.

It also considered the principle that educational qualification alone does not disqualify a spouse from receiving maintenance if they are not currently earning or if the husband has neglected his duties.

The High Court observed that the respondent had a justifiable reason to live separately, specifically noting her willingness to reside with the husband as evidenced by her obtaining a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, which the applicant ignored.

Regarding the financial capacity, the Court found that the applicant is employed as an Assistant Manager at Bhushan Steel Plant with a regular income.

While the applicant argued that the respondent’s B.Com degree and prior work history should bar her from maintenance, the Court upheld the Family Court’s finding that the applicant’s legal duty persists regardless of the wife's potential to work.

The Court determined that ₹7,000 was not "on the higher side" considering the applicant’s professional designation and the prevailing economic circumstances of both parties.

The Court affirmed that the applicant has a moral and legal duty to maintain his wife and that the awarded amount was reasonable.

The criminal revision was dismissed.