Can A Husband Deny To Pay Maintenance If His Wife Has An MBA Degree & Past Job Experience?

In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has held that a woman's educational qualifications or past employment cannot be used as grounds to deny her maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). In its interim order, the court directed the husband to pay his wife Rs 15,000 per month as maintenance.

Before looking at the court's observations in detail, here's a brief overview of the case. The couple married in 2014 in Ahmedabad according to Sikh rites and ceremonies. However, just 20 days after the wedding, the wife left the matrimonial home and began living with her father. She alleged that illegal dowry demands forced her to leave and subsequently filed a complaint at the Women Police Station in Agra.

The husband argued that the wife was highly qualified, holding an MBA degree, and had previously worked at Kotak Mahindra, E-Clerx in Pune, and Quess Corporation, where she reportedly earned an annual salary of Rs 3.36 lakh. According to him, she was fully capable of securing employment and earning more than Rs 50,000 a month, but had chosen not to work for reasons known only to her.

In response, the wife stated that despite her qualifications and prior work experience, she was currently unemployed, financially dependent on her retired father, and unable to support herself. She further claimed that the husband, who is associated with a large education consultancy firm in Ahmedabad and allegedly earns around Rs 5 crore annually while leading a lavish lifestyle, was financially capable of paying her Rs 25,000 per month as maintenance.

The High Court noted that the husband operated a 1,000-square-foot education consultancy in Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad, established in 2001 and registered in the names of his mother and sister. His Income Tax Return (ITR) for the assessment year 2022 showed a gross income of Rs 6.16 lakh, leading the court to question his claim of financial inability. Although he maintained that he held only a 25% partnership stake in the business, the court observed inconsistencies in his ITRs. While the returns for 2022-23 and 2023-24 showed him holding a 50% share, the ITR for 2014-15 reflected a 75% stake.

In its ruling, the Allahabad High Court observed, "The mere fact that the wife is educated or possesses the capacity to earn does not, by itself, disentitle her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. What is required to be considered is her actual and present ability to maintain herself in a manner commensurate with the standard of living she enjoyed in the matrimonial home."

The court further clarified that unless it is proven that the wife is gainfully employed and earning enough to sustain herself, the husband cannot escape his statutory obligation to provide maintenance.

The court also acknowledged that the wife had previously earned around Rs 37,000 per month for more than two years. However, she consistently stated that she was unemployed when she filed the maintenance application, had no provident fund account, and was actively seeking work. During proceedings before the Family Court, she also testified that her father had retired from his job as a security guard. Additionally, the court noted that the husband had made no effort at any stage of the proceedings to show willingness to resume cohabitation with her.