Kerala High Court Upholds Wife's Right to Maintenance Despite Income from Tailoring

The court asserts that a wife's capability to earn does not disqualify her from seeking maintenance if income is insufficient for survival.

In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has reinforced the right of a wife to claim maintenance from her husband, even if she has some income, provided it is inadequate for her sustenance. The judgment came in the case of Rajeevan M. v. Rantin P., where the Family Court's decision to deny maintenance to the wife was overturned. 

Presiding Judge Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J., scrutinized the evidence provided and concluded that the Family Court erred in assessing the wife's financial independence. The court reiterated that the mere capability to earn or having some income does not strip a wife of her entitlement to maintenance. This decision aligns with the broader judicial perspective that maintenance laws are a measure of social justice, aimed at protecting vulnerable members of society, including destitute wives, children, and parents.

The dispute arose when the Family Court declined maintenance to the wife on grounds that she was a tailor by profession and supposedly had sufficient means to support herself. However, the High Court found no substantial evidence to support this claim. It noted that being listed as a tailor in a marriage certificate or being part of a tailors' association does not necessarily imply that the wife earns a stable income from tailoring.

Furthermore, the court addressed the wife's decision to live separately due to alleged cruelty by the husband. Despite the lack of medical records to substantiate physical abuse, the wife's testimony on mental and emotional torture was deemed credible. The court highlighted that these allegations were not effectively contested during cross-examination, thus validating her claim for maintenance.

On the issue of maintenance for children, the court upheld the Family Court's decision to award Rs. 6,000 per month for each child, considering it reasonable based on the husband's financial capacity. The court rejected the husband's claim of insufficient income, emphasizing that an able-bodied person is presumed capable of earning enough to support his family. 

The ruling mandates the husband to provide Rs. 8,000 per month to the wife from the date of the petition, in addition to the maintenance for the children. This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring economic justice and support for women who are unable to adequately support themselves despite some income.

Bottom Line:

Maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (Section 144 of BNSS) - A wife who is capable of earning or earning some income is not disentitled from claiming maintenance from her husband if she asserts that the said income is insufficient for her maintenance.

Statutory provision(s): Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. (Section 144(4) of BNSS)

Rajeevan. M v. Rantin. P, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2812470