'She can earn' argument rejected: Allahabad HC says wife’s degrees, skills no ground to deny maintenance

The Allahabad High Court has made it clear that a wife cannot be denied maintenance simply because she is highly educated or holds professional or vocational qualifications. The court ruled that a woman’s ability or potential to earn does not automatically mean that she is financially independent.

Setting aside an earlier order passed by a family court in Bulandshahr, Justice Garima Prashad said it is unfair and unreasonable for a husband to escape his legal duty by pointing only to his wife’s educational background. The judge observed that relying solely on a woman’s qualifications to deny her financial support is “misplaced” and ignores the realities faced by many women.

Potential to earn is not the same as earning

The High Court underlined a key difference between having the capacity to earn and actually earning an income. It said that many women, despite being educated, are unable to take up paid work because they spend years handling household responsibilities and caring for children. This often makes it difficult for them to re-enter the workforce.


The court noted that a woman’s legal right to maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be taken away just because she might be capable of earning in theory.

Family court order set aside

The family court had earlier rejected the woman’s plea for maintenance, claiming that she had hidden her professional qualifications and was living separately without sufficient reason. It also stated that she had refused to return to her matrimonial home despite legal proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act.

While the family court had granted Rs 3,000 per month to the couple’s minor son, it denied any maintenance to the wife.

However, during the High Court hearing, the woman’s lawyer argued that she had no independent income and that her husband had failed to prove that she was actually employed. The husband, on the other hand, claimed that she worked as a private teacher, held an ITI diploma in tailoring and earned from tuition classes.

The High Court found that there was no clear evidence to show that the woman was gainfully employed. It also observed that she may have left the matrimonial home due to ill-treatment, which had not been properly examined earlier.

Court highlights social reality

In its order dated January 5, the High Court acknowledged the social reality that many women dedicate years to domestic work and childcare, which limits their chances of paid employment later. It said this situation is common, even among educated women, and must be taken into account while deciding maintenance cases.

The court also called the Rs 3,000 awarded to the adolescent son a “meagre” amount, noting that a growing child needs adequate financial support for education and a healthy upbringing.

Case sent back for fresh decision

The High Court has now sent the matter back to the Family Court in Bulandshahr, directing it to pass a fresh and well-reasoned order within one month.

The ruling is being seen as an important reminder that a woman’s education cannot be used as an excuse to deny her basic financial rights, especially when she is not in active employment and is caring for a child.

Inputs from PTI