The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that an estranged wife capable of earning is also entitled to maintenance. The ruling came in a case where the husband claimed the wife was not entitled to maintenance as she was capable of earning.
Justice Daya Chaudhary ruled that it was neither stated in the reply nor argued on the husband’s behalf that the respondent wife was earning. It was simply stated that the respondent wife possessed professional qualifications and could earn her livelihood. As such, directions by a Chief Judicial Magistrate to the husband for paying interim maintenance could not be faulted with.
The petitioner husband had earlier moved the court against the grant of maintenance to the respondent wife primarily on the ground that it was on the higher side and the respondent wife being professionally qualified was in a position to earn her livelihood.
Justice Chaudhary referred to Section 125 of the CrPC on maintenance of wives, children and parents, which said a First Class Magistrate may order a husband to pay a monthly allowance for the wife’s maintenance if he was having sufficient means but was neglecting or refusing to maintain the wife unable to maintain herself.
Justice Chaudhary observed the emphasis was on the wife unable to maintain herself. Section 125 did not deal with the capacity of a wife to earn for herself. “The ingredients of Section 125, CrPC, clearly show that the wife who is unable to maintain herself is entitled to maintenance. Nowhere has it been mentioned that only the wife who is capable of earning is not entitled for maintenance.”
Justice Chaudhary added proceedings under Section 125 were of summary in nature and were intended to enable destitute wives and children, legitimate or illegitimate, to get maintenance in a speedy manner. “It was meant to achieve social purpose and to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife”.
Dismissing the petition, Justice Chaudhary held that Rs 20,000 per month awarded to the respondent wife as interim maintenance could not be termed as excessive. “There is no merit in the contention raised by counsel for the petitioner and the petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed”.
Justice Daya Chaudhary ruled that it was neither stated in the reply nor argued on the husband’s behalf that the respondent wife was earning. It was simply stated that the respondent wife possessed professional qualifications and could earn her livelihood. As such, directions by a Chief Judicial Magistrate to the husband for paying interim maintenance could not be faulted with.
The petitioner husband had earlier moved the court against the grant of maintenance to the respondent wife primarily on the ground that it was on the higher side and the respondent wife being professionally qualified was in a position to earn her livelihood.
Justice Chaudhary referred to Section 125 of the CrPC on maintenance of wives, children and parents, which said a First Class Magistrate may order a husband to pay a monthly allowance for the wife’s maintenance if he was having sufficient means but was neglecting or refusing to maintain the wife unable to maintain herself.
Justice Chaudhary observed the emphasis was on the wife unable to maintain herself. Section 125 did not deal with the capacity of a wife to earn for herself. “The ingredients of Section 125, CrPC, clearly show that the wife who is unable to maintain herself is entitled to maintenance. Nowhere has it been mentioned that only the wife who is capable of earning is not entitled for maintenance.”
Justice Chaudhary added proceedings under Section 125 were of summary in nature and were intended to enable destitute wives and children, legitimate or illegitimate, to get maintenance in a speedy manner. “It was meant to achieve social purpose and to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife”.
Dismissing the petition, Justice Chaudhary held that Rs 20,000 per month awarded to the respondent wife as interim maintenance could not be termed as excessive. “There is no merit in the contention raised by counsel for the petitioner and the petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed”.
Comments
Post a Comment