Wife’s independent income is no ground to deny maintenance from an able-bodied husband.

The parties were married approximately 20 years ago and have two children

Following matrimonial disputes, the respondent-wife left the matrimonial home and initiated proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Domestic Violence Act

The wife alleged the petitioner-husband earned ₹60,000–₹70,000 per month from saree and fishing net businesses, while the husband contended he was a mere laborer with no fixed income and had to support his two children and aged parents

On March 27, 2018, the Family Court, Bhavnagar, awarded the wife maintenance of ₹5,000 per month from the date of the application

The husband challenged this order via the present revision application, asserting that the wife earned income from a saree business and that the Family Court failed to appreciate evidence regarding his actual financial status

1. Whether the Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence regarding the husband's income and the wife's alleged independent earnings

2. Whether the fact that a wife earns some income is sufficient ground to deny her maintenance under Section 125 CrPC

3. Whether the High Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower court

The court primarily applied Section 125 of the CrPC, which mandates that a person with sufficient means must maintain their neglected wife

It relied on Chanchalben Pursottam Patel v. Madhukant Patel (1995) and Kirtikant D. Vadodariya v. State of Gujarat (1996) to emphasize that maintenance must account for inflation and the status of the parties

The court further applied the principle from Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha (2014), establishing that a wife’s qualification or potential to earn is not a valid ground to deny maintenance

Finally, it invoked Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015) regarding the husband's ethical duty

and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) to define the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction

The Court observed that the marital relationship and the wife's entitlement to maintenance were undisputed

Regarding the husband's income, the Court noted that documents at Exhibit 56 (income certificate and plastic shop records) contradicted his claim of being a mere laborer

The Court reasoned that as an able-bodied person, the husband has a legal and social duty to maintain his wife at the same standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage

The Court rejected the husband's argument regarding the wife's alleged income, clarifying that "merely because the wife is earning some income is not, by itself, a ground to refuse maintenance"

Citing Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana (2024), the Court highlighted the financial vulnerability of Indian homemakers and the necessity of financial empowerment

Consequently, the Court found no "patent error" or "miscarriage of justice" in the Family Court’s order

It held that the maintenance amount of ₹5,000 per month was just and reasonable considering the cost of living and the husband's capacity as an able-bodied man

The Court concluded that the petitioner failed to satisfy the requirements for revisional interference under the standard set in Amit Kapoor

Rule discharged