The Kerala High Court recently delivered an important judgment regarding the entitlement of a wife with a temporary job to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Here’s a detailed breakdown of the case and the Court’s reasoning:
Case Background:
The case, Jayaprakash EP v Sheney & anr, involved a wife and her elder daughter who filed a petition seeking monthly maintenance from the husband. The wife, a former employee of Matsyafed, was earning a salary of ₹21,175 per month from her temporary job, while the husband, a former Merchant Navy captain, was earning a pension after retirement. The wife argued that her temporary income was insufficient to maintain herself and her dependent daughter, and that she was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
The husband, on the other hand, contested the claim by stating that he was no longer in active service and relied on his pension. He further argued that his wife had a stable income through her temporary job, and therefore, he should not be required to pay maintenance. Additionally, the husband contested the maintenance claim for the elder daughter, arguing that she had attained majority and was no longer eligible for maintenance.
Key Issues:
Wife’s Eligibility for Maintenance: The wife sought maintenance from her husband despite having a temporary job. The question at hand was whether her temporary employment and income disqualified her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
Elder Daughter’s Maintenance: The court had to decide whether the elder daughter, who had attained majority, was entitled to maintenance from her father under Section 125 CrPC or if she could only claim it under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA).
Court’s Observations:
Wife’s Entitlement to Maintenance: Temporary Employment Doesn’t Disqualify: The Court reaffirmed the well-established legal position that a wife’s ability to earn or her employment does not automatically disqualify her from claiming maintenance. The critical factor is whether her income is sufficient to maintain the same standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage. The Court emphasized that even if a wife is employed, if her earnings are insufficient for her sustenance and to maintain the same lifestyle as before, she is still entitled to claim maintenance from her husband.
Test for Maintenance: The Court explained that the key test for maintenance is the wife’s ability to live the same standard of life that she enjoyed when living with her husband. In this case, despite her employment, the wife’s income was insufficient to meet her needs, particularly with a dependent daughter.
Husband’s Responsibility to Maintain: The Court noted that the husband, despite his claim of relying on a pension, had the ability to earn given his background as a former Merchant Navy captain. The husband failed to provide concrete evidence of financial incapacity to maintain his wife and daughter. The Court observed that an able-bodied husband must be presumed capable of earning enough to support his family, unless proven otherwise with solid evidence.
Elder Daughter’s Maintenance: The Court distinguished between Section 125 CrPC and Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA). While Section 125 CrPC mandates maintenance for a wife and minor children, it does not extend to adult unmarried children unless they are physically or mentally disabled.
In this case, since the elder daughter had attained majority, she was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC unless she proved any disability. However, she could seek maintenance under Section 20(3) of HAMA, which requires a father to maintain an unmarried daughter who cannot support herself. Since the wife and daughter did not explicitly claim maintenance under HAMA, the Court ruled that the elder daughter was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC but was free to approach the family court under HAMA if needed.
Insurance Policy Certificates:
The Court upheld the family court’s decision to direct the husband to hand over certain insurance policy certificates to the wife, which had been previously contested.
Court’s Final Ruling:
The Kerala High Court set aside the family court’s order that had denied maintenance to the wife. It remitted the case back to the family court for reconsideration of the quantum of maintenance.
The Court emphasized that the wife, despite her temporary job, was entitled to maintenance from her husband as her income was insufficient to sustain her and her dependent daughter at the same standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage.
The elder daughter was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, as she had reached the age of majority, but she could seek maintenance under the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA), 1956, if she is unable to support herself.
Conclusion:
The Kerala High Court’s judgment reinforces the principle that a wife’s ability to earn does not automatically disentitle her from claiming maintenance. The focus is on whether her earnings are sufficient to maintain her lifestyle. In cases where the wife cannot sustain herself at the same standard of living as during her marriage, she has the right to seek maintenance from her husband, even if she is employed in a temporary job. Similarly, the case clarifies the legal provisions surrounding the maintenance of adult children, particularly distinguishing between claims under Section 125 CrPC and HAMA.