Educated wife’s earning capacity does not absolve husband of duty to pay maintenance absent proof of actual income.

The applicant (husband) and respondent (wife) were married on June 13, 2023.

The respondent left the matrimonial home on March 5, 2024, alleging ill-treatment and harassment.

She subsequently filed an application for maintenance under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) before the Family Court, Balodabazar-Bhatapara.

The Family Court, via order dated February 11, 2026, directed the applicant to pay ₹10,000 per month.

The applicant challenged this order through the present criminal revision, contending that the respondent is well-educated (M.Sc.) and possesses independent means (agricultural land), while he is an agriculturist with seasonal income and a dependent mother.

1. Whether the Family Court committed a jurisdictional error or illegality in awarding maintenance despite the respondent’s educational qualifications and family assets.

2. Whether the applicant's seasonal income and familial liabilities exempt him from the obligation to pay the awarded maintenance amount.

The Court primarily applied Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which governs the grant of maintenance to wives unable to maintain themselves.

It adhered to the principle that a husband has a legal, social, and moral obligation to maintain his legally wedded wife.

Furthermore, it referenced the precedent established in *Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324*, which mandates that maintenance must be determined by balancing the income, resources, and financial status of the husband against the needs of the wife.

The High Court observed that the Family Court correctly identified that the respondent had "sufficient and reasonable cause" to live separately due to unrebutted allegations of harassment.

Regarding financial capacity, the Court noted that while the respondent is educated, the applicant failed to produce reliable evidence to prove she was actually earning an independent income.

Conversely, evidence indicated the applicant owned agricultural land and assisted in a family clothing and footwear business, establishing "sufficient means."

The Court reasoned that potential earning capacity (education) does not negate the right to maintenance if actual income is not proven.

The court dismissed the applicant's argument regarding seasonal income, holding that maintenance must reflect the standard of living and the husband's overall resources.

The High Court affirmed that ₹10,000 per month was not excessive given the parties' circumstances.

Consequently, the criminal revision was dismissed, and the order of the Family Court was upheld.