Wife’s qualification or independent income does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

The applicant (husband) sought to quash the Family Court’s order dated April 16, 2018, which directed him to pay monthly maintenance of ₹15,000 to the respondent (wife) under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

The respondent alleged that following their marriage in 2012, she was subjected to harassment and driven out of the matrimonial home.

The applicant, a software engineer with an M.Tech from Australia, contended that the wife was well-qualified (MBA), employed at a hospital earning ₹15,980 per month, and had suppressed material facts regarding her income to claim maintenance.

The Family Court found that the husband had suppressed his actual income, estimated his earnings at ₹80,000 to ₹90,000 per month, and awarded maintenance despite the wife's employment, noting her total requirement was ₹30,000 per month.

1. Whether a wife is disqualified from claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. solely because she is well-qualified and possesses some earning capacity.

2. Whether the Family Court’s estimation of the husband’s income and the resulting maintenance award warranted interference under revisional jurisdiction.

Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., which governs the maintenance of wives, children, and parents.

Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to address the husband’s suppression of income, placing the burden on him to disclose facts within his special knowledge.

Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha (2014), which held that a wife's qualifications or some earnings are not sufficient grounds to deny maintenance if she cannot maintain herself at the appropriate standard.

Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015) regarding the husband's ethical and legal duty to maintain his wife.

Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) regarding the restricted scope of revisional jurisdiction.

The Court observed that the marriage was undisputed and that the applicant had failed to provide income tax returns or financial documents, leading the lower court to reasonably infer his income based on his profession.

In applying the Sunita Kachwaha precedent, the Court reasoned that "inability to maintain herself" does not require the wife to be in a state of destitution; rather, it relates to the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage.

The Court found that since the husband’s income was substantial (₹80,000-₹90,000) and the wife’s income (₹15,000) was insufficient to meet her assessed need of ₹30,000, the Family Court’s order to bridge the gap via a ₹15,000 maintenance award was equitable.

The Court concluded that the husband cannot shirk his social and lawful duty to provide financial support.

It held that the Family Court’s order was just and proper, assigning sufficient reasons based on the evidence.

The Court upheld the award of ₹15,000 per month in maintenance and ₹7,500 towards litigation expenses, ruling that there was no patent error or miscarriage of justice requiring revisional interference.

All pending stay applications were disposed of accordingly.