The Madhya Pradesh High Court, on Tuesday, noted that well-qualified women should not remain idle or rely solely on their husband’s maintenance. Justice Prem Narayan Singh stated that a married woman is not prohibited from working, and receiving maintenance should not hinder her from earning an income for her livelihood.
Section 125 of CrPC has not been introduced to create an army of idle or inactive people waiting for maintenance to be awarded from the income of the other spouse, the Court said.
“This Court is of the considered opinion that a well qualified spouses should not be left idle or to remain idle basing on their maintenance amount received from their husband. Nevertheless, Section 125 of Cr.P.C has not been constituted to create an army of idle or inactive people waiting for maintenance to be awarded from the income of the other spouse,” the Court said.
The court was hearing criminal revision petitions filed by a husband and wife challenging a family court’s order that directed the husband to pay her ₹60,000 per month.
The wife had previously approached the family court under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking maintenance from her husband, whom she accused of harassment. She claimed that he was employed in a senior position at a bank in Dubai.
The husband, however, argued that she was living separately without valid reason and frequently instigated conflicts with him. He further mentioned that she had previously worked at a bank in Dubai and was currently earning money by operating a coaching center and beauty parlour there.
Both parties were dissatisfied with the family court’s maintenance order. The woman claimed the amount was insufficient, while the husband sought a reduction, stating that he had lost his job due to a false complaint she had filed, leaving him with no source of income.
After reviewing the arguments, the Court initially noted that the husband’s claim of residing in Dubai without employment lacked credibility.
However, the Court also observed that the wife was well-qualified, holding a Master’s degree in commerce and a diploma in shipping and trading, indicating her earning potential. Therefore, the Court emphasized that she should not be awarded an excessive amount of maintenance.
“It can be assumed that she can easily earn a good income by indulging herself in any work or business,” the Court said.
In this backdrop, the Court reduced the maintenance amount from ₹60,000 to ₹40,000.