In a significant ruling that underscores the legal and social obligations within marriage, the Allahabad High Court has set aside a family court order that denied maintenance to a wife. The bench, led by Justice Garima Prashad, strongly rejected the husband's argument that his wife's higher educational qualifications disqualified her from receiving financial support.
Court Rejects Husband's 'Qualification' Argument
The High Court was hearing a petition filed by a woman challenging a Bulandshahr family court order that had denied her maintenance from her husband. The husband had contended that his wife was more qualified, holding a postgraduate degree (MA) and an ITI Diploma in tailoring, while he was only a Class 10 passout. He argued she was capable of earning on her own.
The bench found this logic "misplaced," stating it was incorrect for a husband to rely solely on his wife's qualifications to evade his legal duty to maintain her. Justice Prashad observed that women often devote themselves to domestic responsibilities and childcare, which can prevent gainful employment. The court noted that when marital discord leads to separation, such sacrifices are often unfairly portrayed as tactics to extract money.
Case Background and Allegations of Cruelty
The woman stated in her petition that she married the man on May 20, 2006, as per Hindu rituals. Her husband is a Class-IV employee at a primary school in Bulandshahr district, earning approximately Rs 35,000 per month. The couple has a 15-year-old son who lives with the mother.
The petitioner alleged she left her matrimonial home in 2015 due to physical and mental cruelty, including beatings and harassment. She initially filed for maintenance but withdrew the case after a compromise where the husband assured her proper care. She returned home but claimed she was beaten again and expelled from the home on January 9, 2020, over dowry demands.
She subsequently filed a fresh petition in the family court on April 19, 2021, seeking a monthly maintenance of Rs 15,000 for herself and Rs 10,000 for her son, stating she was financially dependent on her parents. The husband, in a shocking claim, also denied fathering the child, alleging no physical relationship since 2007—a claim the family court had earlier rejected due to lack of evidence.
High Court's Directive and Social Commentary
The Allahabad High Court, in its order dated January 12, 2026, set aside the family court's ruling. It remanded the case back to the Bulandshahr family court for a fresh determination of maintenance. The High Court instructed the judge to pass a reasoned order within one month, considering all material on record and the principles governing maintenance.
The court made several critical observations:
- While the wife concealed her educational details, the husband also made a false statement by denying the child's paternity to avoid maintenance.
- The family court had awarded only Rs 3,000 per month for the minor son, which the High Court called a "meager amount" for an adolescent's needs.
- The revisionist wife is entitled to maintenance from the husband even if she has the capacity to work.
The judgment emphasized that sweeping assumptions against women are "not only unfair but deeply insensitive to the social and emotional realities that women face." This ruling reinforces that a wife's right to maintenance under law is not extinguished merely by her possessing qualifications or potential earning capacity, especially within the context of domestic responsibilities and marital breakdown.
