The Madhya Pradesh High Court has stated that when a husband is capable of earning, he is responsible for providing support to his wife and children, even if he's unemployed.
A bench led by Justice Prem Narayan Singh also ruled that a wife with an M.Phil degree cannot be denied maintenance.
Our readers should be aware that this observation aligns with the recent opinion of the same bench, which stated that a wife's higher education degree should not disqualify her from receiving maintenance.
In its ruling, the Court emphasized that a husband cannot avoid his responsibility for supporting his child and wife by claiming that she made errors in her statements and legal proceedings.
The bench made these remarks while dismissing a revision petition filed by the husband, who sought a reduction in the maintenance amount of Rs. 7,000 for the wife and Rs. 3,000 for the son, which had been denied by the Family Court.
In essence, the husband's counsel argued that the wife, who has a Master's Degree and is employed at Bhartiya Mahavidyalaya, Ujjain, is well-qualified. They also claimed that the husband is willing to have the wife live with him and provide for her.
Additionally, it was contended that the wife had not been forthright with the court and had concealed the fact that she was employed as a teacher and earning a substantial salary, which would enable her to support herself.
The argument before the bench was also firmly based on the husband's claim that he should not be held responsible for supporting his wife and children because he had resigned from his job.
Conversely, the respondent's counsel argued that the husband, in his revision, was earning Rs.7.00 lakhs annually, and therefore, the wife should have a standard of living commensurate with the petitioner's income.
Considering the arguments presented, the Court emphasized that in a proceeding under Section 125 CrPC, it is unnecessary to determine fault or delve into intricate details of the marital discord between the husband and wife.
In light of this, and emphasizing that a financially struggling wife should not be subjected to victimization solely based on her shortcomings, the Court made the following observation:
In maintenance cases of this nature, a hyper-technical approach should not be taken. Consequently, the petitioner cannot evade the responsibility of supporting his child and wife by claiming that she made errors in her statements and legal proceedings.
Additionally, the Court pointed out that the respondent-wife, during her examination-in-chief, had affirmed that she was not employed, lacked any source of income, had no means to support her child, and depended on her father. These statements remained unchallenged in her cross-examination.
Considering these facts, the Court concluded that even with an M.Phil degree, the wife could not be denied maintenance. As a result, the Court rejected the revision petition and the request to refer the matter back to the Family Court.
TAGS: Court wife maintenance husband M.Phil degree revision plea Family Court dismissal.
